In Roman Catholic History, Did That "Church" Ever Feel Threatened?

encyclopedia.com states
it is a Jewish expression referring the death
"The phrase "the gates of Hades–Sheol" occurs in the Old Testament at Is 38.10 and Wis 16.13, where it is a figurative expression for death. This is likewise its meaning in the apocrypha (Psalms of Solomon 16.2; 3 Mc5.51)
and in classical Greek literature (Homer, Iliad 5.646; 9.312; Odyssey 14.156; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1290; Euripides, Hippolytus, 56)

Gates of Hell | Encyclopedia.com

GATES OF HELL This phrase occurs in the New Testament only at Mt 16.18: "… upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Greek word here rendered "hell" is
www.encyclopedia.com
www.encyclopedia.com

From Gotquestions
"It is clear that Jesus was declaring that death has no power to hold God’s people captive. Its gates are not strong enough to overpower and keep imprisoned the church of God."

? From US Conference of Catholics Bishops states?
"The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hadēs, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."

Matthew, CHAPTER 16

But RCs have trouble between literal and symbolic.
 
? From US Conference of Catholics Bishops states?
"The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hadēs, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."

Matthew, CHAPTER 16

Oh, I notice the official definition for gates of hell is sandwiched between the explanation of Peter as the Rock and binding/loosing (also a Jewish expression) as imagery for authority. Did you happen to read those also? I'm sure they carry the same "weight".
 
Oh, I notice the official definition for gates of hell is sandwiched between the explanation of Peter as the Rock and binding/loosing (also a Jewish expression) as imagery for authority. Did you happen to read those also? I'm sure they carry the same "weight".
the point is the gates of Hell refers to death (spiritual death)
NOT to authority or infallibility
 
encyclopedia.com states
it is a Jewish expression referring the death
"The phrase "the gates of Hades–Sheol" occurs in the Old Testament at Is 38.10 and Wis 16.13, where it is a figurative expression for death. This is likewise its meaning in the apocrypha (Psalms of Solomon 16.2; 3 Mc5.51)
and in classical Greek literature (Homer, Iliad 5.646; 9.312; Odyssey 14.156; Aeschylus, Agamemnon 1290; Euripides, Hippolytus, 56)

Gates of Hell | Encyclopedia.com

GATES OF HELL This phrase occurs in the New Testament only at Mt 16.18: "… upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." The Greek word here rendered "hell" is
www.encyclopedia.com
www.encyclopedia.com

From Gotquestions
"It is clear that Jesus was declaring that death has no power to hold God’s people captive. Its gates are not strong enough to overpower and keep imprisoned the church of God."

? From US Conference of Catholics Bishops states?
"The gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it: the netherworld (Greek Hadēs, the abode of the dead) is conceived of as a walled city whose gates will not close in upon the church of Jesus, i.e., it will not be overcome by the power of death."

Matthew, CHAPTER 16

I see. So your point is that we must interpret this phrase as narrowly as possible.

Hades means "death" and that is it.

The problem is that you also have Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and telling him about binding and loosing. In other words--this passage isn't just about the Gospel being preached and death not overcoming believers.
 
Oh, I notice the official definition for gates of hell is sandwiched between the explanation of Peter as the Rock and binding/loosing (also a Jewish expression) as imagery for authority. Did you happen to read those also? I'm sure they carry the same "weight".
Don't confuse these poor Protestants with the facts.
 
What is it?????????????????

Well for a start scripture is clear we have one mediator. You don't see a problem with your co mediatrix?
No. I don't.

We are not asserting that Mary's mediation is the same as that of Christ or on His level in any way. Christ's mediation is unique. That is why I do not see the assertion that Mary is co-redemptrix as a problem or in conflict with Scripture.

That said, as of now the doctrine of "co-redemptrix" is heterodox--that is--it isn't defined, nor condemned. Catholics, therefore, are free to accept or reject it as they see fit. However, both Pope Francis and Benedict have commented against the doctrine.
 
I see. So your point is that we must interpret this phrase as narrowly as possible.

Hades means "death" and that is it.

The problem is that you also have Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and telling him about binding and loosing. In other words--this passage isn't just about the Gospel being preached and death not overcoming believers.
the point is : it is not a proof text for Catholic Church infallibility or authority
 
Oh, I notice the official definition for gates of hell is sandwiched between the explanation of Peter as the Rock and binding/loosing (also a Jewish expression) as imagery for authority. Did you happen to read those also? I'm sure they carry the same "weight".
The Roman Catholic Church wants to interpret the verse found in Matt. 16:18.
Don't confuse these poor Protestants with the facts.

It begins with Jesus asking His disciples "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" They answer, "Some say you are John the Baptist, and others, Elijah; but still others , Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." Christ then asks them, "But who do you say that I am" Peter answers, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." This passage concludes with Jesus warning His disciples "that they should tell no one that He was the Christ."
 
I see. So your point is that we must interpret this phrase as narrowly as possible.

Hades means "death" and that is it.

The problem is that you also have Jesus giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and telling him about binding and loosing. In other words--this passage isn't just about the Gospel being preached and death not overcoming believers.
So, did Jesus make a play on words when He said, "You are Peter (petros, a masculine noun meaning "boulder" or "detached stone"), and upon this rock (petra a feminine noun meaning "bedrock or "a mass of rock") I will build My church." The change in words indicates that the rock on which Christ would build His Church is not Peter, but someone far greater.
 
Don't confuse these poor Protestants with the facts.
"Protestants" firmly know the facts, no problem there. More importantly though, is not to "confuse yourself." Believers know that every figurative use of the word rock in the OT is a reference to deity. See for example, Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18; 2 Samuel 2: 22:32/ Psalm 18:31; Isaiah 44: 8.
Jesus' Jewish apostles would have had that imagery in their minds as they interpreted His words.
 
So, did Jesus make a play on words when He said, "You are Peter (petros, a masculine noun meaning "boulder" or "detached stone"), and upon this rock (petra a feminine noun meaning "bedrock or "a mass of rock") I will build My church." The change in words indicates that the rock on which Christ would build His Church is not Peter, but someone far greater.
Is that what He said? Or is that a translation of what He said?
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter).

No "play on words".
 
And so I say to you, you are Peter [Kepha], and upon this rock [Kepha] I will build MY CHURCH, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
 
the point is : it is not a proof text for Catholic Church infallibility or authority

Can God bind error, sir? Yes, or no?

Note: this passage is not used to proof text the collective infallibility of the Church, it is used primarily as a proof text for the foundation of the papacy as well as the infallibility of the pope.
 
"Protestants" firmly know the facts, no problem there.
No, what Protestants know is what they have been taught. They know the Protestant interpretation of the Scriptures.
More importantly though, is not to "confuse yourself." Believers know that every figurative use of the word rock in the OT is a reference to deity.
Hence why its identification with Peter in Matthew 16 is all the more striking.
See for example, Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18; 2 Samuel 2: 22:32/ Psalm 18:31; Isaiah 44: 8. Jesus' Jewish apostles would have had that imagery in their minds as they interpreted His words.
Sure they would have! And this is exactly why they would have found it all the more striking that the word "rock" is being associated with a human being!

You just helped prove my case. I suggest you stop posting now.
 
Thank you.

Now, if what Peter binds or looses will be bound and loosed in heaven, it logically follows that Peter cannot bind error, since God cannot bind error.

Was that so hard?
i am not sure of the name of that logical fallacy


it may be this:
Affirming the consequent – otherwise known as a ‘converse error’ – is a logical fallacy that involves taking a true statement and assuming the converse form would be true as well. Formally, we can represent this fallacy as follows:

If X is the case, then Y is also the case.

Y is true, so X must be true as well.
 
Back
Top