Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[Randy_Carson]

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)

"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus was thoroughly familiar with the Old Testament scriptures, and He intentionally referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter as His royal steward. Peter received authority from Jesus to speak in His name, and to do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error. Therefore, Peter (and his successors who are the leaders of Jesus’ Church) are protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals. This is called “infallibility”.

Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this curious passage mean? There are two possible interpretations.

First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put Himself in the impossible situation of having to affirm that which is not true whenever the Church taught error.

A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10).

Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

In conclusion, we have seen that Matthew has packed an incredible amount of information into one brief passage. We know that Jesus promised that He Himself would build a single Church with Peter as the rock upon which that Church would be built, that the office of head of the Church would be eternal, and that the Church itself must be protected from ever teaching error.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

Told you,

 

[guanophore]

So it didn't mean anything when he called him Satan?

Of course it does. The word means “adversary”.Peter was taknig a position that was adversarial to Christ’s mission.

And we can argue (yes we can!) whether Peter or faith or Christ was the rock.

There is no separation between these. Clearly Jesus did not rename Peter to “Cephas” for no reason. But at that moment, Jesus grafted Cephas into himself as cornerstone. Peter’s statment is also a rocky profession of faith.

 If it was Peter's idea that he was in charge, not Christ's, then he was not the rock, definitely not.

This is absurd. One can count on one hand the number of times God has renamed a person in the Scriptures. It always denotes a drastic change of identity and mission.

Peter’s duties to feed and care for the flock did not commence until the Ascension of Christ.

That being said, Peter was never hesitant to put himself forward in any situation. I wonder if this impetuosity was one reason Christ chose him.

 

[spina1953]

I have as many of you have read chpt. 16: 23 of Matthew and taking one sentence and trying to make it sound as though Christ was rebuking Peter to mean that Jesus was not going to make Peter the head of the Church on earth. I feel that in order to get the real scope of this verse one needs to read on the whole of the passage to get at the real meaning of what was being said.

After Jesus calls Peter the Rock for acknowledging Jesus as the Messiah, Jesus goes on to on to tell them that He must go on to Jerusalem  and suffer at the hands of the elders, the chief priests, and the Scribes and be put to death.  Peter then takes Jesus aside and says to Him :May you be spared, Master! God forbid that any such thing ever happens to you!" Then Jesus says "Get out of my sight, you satan, You are trying to make Me trip and fall. You are not judging by God's standards but by man's.

 First off, one should put oneself into Peter's place as well as even the rest of the Apostles after hearing what was to happen to Jesus. if it were me I think I would have maybe said the same thing?  Peter and the rest of the Apostles spend nearly three years of their lives, everyday with Jesus and had come to love Him and followed Him everywhere he went and saw all that he did. is it so hard to believe that someone like Peter would be very upset over the fact that Jesus would have to suffer and die? Would you want that for your friend you love? This is how I see Peter, he loved Jesus and Jesus was his friend and so would not want to see any harm to come to Jesus.

Peter was well intentioned and well meaning, But Peter at this point in time as well as the rest of the Apostles still did not understand fully the true Purpose of what Jesus came to do which was to free mankind and reopen the gates of heaven to all and to atone for the sins of man. As a matter of fact they did not understand this till after Jesus rose from the dead on the third day. 

Satan was trying to do his best by using Peter's Love and friendship and feelings and emotions to under mind what Jesus had to do. Jesus was rebuking not so much Peter but satan who was using Peter to his own ends.  satan works often by using one's emotions and feelings, by twisting it in such a way to make it work to his advantage, which in this case did not work against Jesus. satan used Peter's lack of understanding of what Jesus was saying in order to get Jesus not to do what he came to do.

I do not feel that this passage of Scripture in any way or manor says that Peter is not going to be the head of the Church Jesus promised He would build on Peter, who is the rock, the foundation of the Church Jesus would build on Peter.

 

[ptisme]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

Peter was looking out for Christ. Christ was about to go do something that he didn’t look forward to doing but it had to be done. The last thing he wanted Peter to do was to try any more coaxing than Christ already had experienced in his own mind from Satan. The term for Satan in Hebrew is “adversary”. This has nothing to do with making Peter the head of the earthly kingdom.
Furthermore, God always had a leader of his people here on earth. Remember Moses, Solomon, David et al… ?

 

[Denise1957]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

Tomyris, I doubt that you will really consider this response, since you have haven’t seriously considered anything that Catholics have written here (except to often post snarky and arrogant comments in response to what Catholics have tried to explain here). I’ll post this instead for Catholics who may have an interest in the subject.

I found a Catholic website which posits ideas for why Jesus said to Simon Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan’ The last part of the article gives the views originally from Origen, which was then adopted by most of the Church Fathers and Doctors (including St. Thomas). Here’s an excerpt:

“Notice that our Savior does not rebuke Simon Peter in the same words with which he had earlier rebuked Satan. In the desert, after the tempting, our Lord said to Satan: “Begone, Satan …] Then the devil left him.” (Matthew 4:10). But the Savior speaks diversely to Simon Peter: “Go behind me, Satan.” (Matthew 16:23).”

“The Fathers note that our Savior had utterly rebuked and rejected Satan – banishing him from his presence. With Peter, however, it is different. The Lord says “Go behind me,” that is “follow me.” Jesus here invites Peter to imitate his humility and his willingness to suffer - indeed we may well claim that this Gospel passage contains not merely the first prediction of the passion of our Christ, but includes also the promise of Peter’s own suffering and death.”

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-jesus-really-call-peter-satan.html

 

[pablope]

I explained above: post-Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect, for the purpose of this thread.

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

But then, you must first have to prove that Scripture alone contains everything there is to know in that time.

And secondly, as I asked, is your interpretation in Jesus calling Satan in Peter accurate or is it just opinionated opinion?

Is your interpretation the only acceptable interpretation and why? Did Jesus reveal to you what He actually meant when He stated those words?

Otherwise, you have been offered a differing interpretation, which you do not accept, so it is just an exercise in voicing your dislike for the papacy…

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks, Randy for the concise explanation.

The Christians in Rome worshipped in homes and was administered by presbyters in comparison to Antioch and Alexandria that had its local contained church with a bishop. Yet people considered themselves still as the united Church of Rome…the period following imediately after Peter’s death under Nero…Linus was the first head and then St. Clement who resumed documenting and referred to Peter as their founder in 94 ad.

The Holy Spirit doesn’t lead the apostles to Rome without founding a Church otherwise they are not fulfilling their mission to be sent out.

Peter lived more than 30 years after Christ’s earthly ministry ended and doubt very much if he even wasted one minute of his time doing something else, other than fulfilling Christ’s will.

You read Scripture alone to find answer…all documentation then ends at the Book of Revelation. There is nothing out there that is verifiable except that found in Christ’s Church and its history.

That is the great flaw of Sola Scriptura and the imbalance of Luther’s thinking to remove Church history and no consecrated priesthood and pope.

How people can follow one man 1500 years after the event is problematic if you want to find out facts what happened after Revelations.

 

[pablope]

Of course it does. The word means “adversary”.Peter was taknig a position that was adversarial to Christ’s mission.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post
If it was Peter’s idea that he was in charge, not Christ’s, then he was not the rock, definitely not.
This is absurd. One can count on one hand the number of times God has renamed a person in the Scriptures. It always denotes a drastic change of identity and mission.

Peter’s duties to feed and care for the flock did not commence until the Ascension of Christ.

That being said, Peter was never hesitant to put himself forward in any situation. I wonder if this impetuosity was one reason Christ chose him.

m.

By changing Simon’s name to Peter, in that culture at that time, which you do not seem to take into account, a change in name meant a change in stature, so a Jew would have understood the reason for a name change.

Name Change:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;

Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 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. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”**

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, verse 23 follows pretty quickly, does it not? That’s where Jesus called him Satan. Right after Peter does something that sounds authoritative. Sounds to me like Peter was being presumptuous and got strongly rebuked for thinking he was in charge.

As though to remove all possible doubt on the subject, the inspired record of the Gospel at once goes on to show us this very Simon, whom Jesus has just declared to be the Rock of the Church and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, forthwith left to his own resources and speaking–with the best intentions in the world no doubt, but without the divine assistance–under the influence of his own individual and uninspired personality. ‘And thereafter Jesus began to show His disciples that He must needs go to Jerusalem and suffer much at the hands of the elders and the scribes and the chief priests and be put to death and rise again the third day. And Peter, taking Him aside, began to rebuke Him, saying: Far be it from Thee, Lord; this shall not happen unto Thee. And turning about He said to Peter: Get thee behind Me, Satan, thou art an offence unto Me, for thou understandest not that which is of God, but that which is of men’ (Matt. 16: 21-23).

Are we to follow our Greco-Russian controversialists in placing this text in opposition to the one before it and so make Christ’s words cancel one another out? Are we to believe that the incarnate Truth changed His mind so quickly and revoked in a moment what He had only just announced? And yet on the other hand how are we to reconcile ‘Blessed’ and ‘Satan’? How is it conceivable that he who is for our Lord Himself a ‘rock of offence’ should yet be the Rock of His Church which the gates of hell cannot shake? Or that one who thinks only the thoughts of men can receive the revelation of the heavenly Father and can hold the keys of the Kingdom of God?

There is only one way to harmonize these passages which the inspired Evangelist has with good reason placed side by side. Simon Peter as supreme pastor and doctor of the Universal Church, assisted by God and speaking in the name of all, is the faithful witness and infallible exponent of divine-human truth; as such he is the impregnable foundation of the house of God and the key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven.

The same Simon Peter as a private individual, speaking and acting by his natural powers and merely human intelligence, may say and do things that are unworthy, scandalous and even diabolical. But the failures and sins of the individual are ephemeral, while the social function of the ecclesiastical monarch is permanent. ‘Satan’ and the ‘offence’ have vanished, but Peter has remained.

from Russia and the Universal Church
by Vladimir Soloviev

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy Carson…you did great work in your presentation.

I think the bottom line is accepting the Church 's authority over private interpretation outside the Church.

Bottom line of issue is authority.

I just read through this entire thread and was a little shocked at this. Randy’s posts are short and to the point. What in the heck are you talking about?

Thank you, guys. I did get a little carried away with the quotes from Protestant scholars, but it’s pretty obvious that while the theologians and scholars of many Protestant denomination have concluded that Peter is the rock and the royal steward, word of this has not filtered down to the average Joe in the pews.

That’s why we keep having to educate them…one…at…a…time…

:tiphat:

 

[guanophore]

Wow. You wanna change the subject, since you have nothing to add that is constructive?

Does this thread make me look fat?

No, but I am wondering if whatever need you had when you got to CAF has been met, and you are nearing the time of your departure. There appears to have been a shift in your attitude and deportment.

Sorry but it is the subject if you want to reject all extra biblical documents. We have to say, why. You cannot give a valid reason…hence your unproductive comment.

I have to say, calling the witness of history “tainted evidence” does reflect a very narrow mind.

I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Your tone appears to be growing increasingly uncharitable.

Scriptural material that advocates that Peter was the head of the church is suspect,

We need to look at Scripture alone for this one.

Who is the royal “we” who needs to do this? If this is the case, I think we will just runaround in the same circles that Christians have been running for 500 years. It boils down, in these cases, to one’s own perceptions of what the text is saying. There are as many perceptions as there are belly buttons. Clearly yours does not accept the view that was handed down to us from the Apostles(that reflected in the writings of the Fathers and the practices of the Church).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy:

Quit spamming the thread. It is against Form Rules and is rude. I don’t and I won’t read posts that long. I just consider it trash you threw on the thread and it is not worth responding to.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Sometimes short questions require long explanations to be adequate.

Who is God?
What is sex?
Why did the Beatles break up?

You have to read a bit to get those answers.

 

[spina1953]

Tomyris, I doubt that you will really consider this response, since you have haven’t seriously considered anything that Catholics have written here (except to often post snarky and arrogant comments in response to what Catholics have tried to explain here). I’ll post this instead for Catholics who may have an interest in the subject.

I found a Catholic website which posits ideas for why Jesus said to Simon Peter: ‘Get behind me, Satan’ The last part of the article gives the views originally from Origen, which was then adopted by most of the Church Fathers and Doctors (including St. Thomas). Here’s an excerpt:

“Notice that our Savior does not rebuke Simon Peter in the same words with which he had earlier rebuked Satan. In the desert, after the tempting, our Lord said to Satan: “Begone, Satan …] Then the devil left him.” (Matthew 4:10). But the Savior speaks diversely to Simon Peter: “Go behind me, Satan.” (Matthew 16:23).”

“The Fathers note that our Savior had utterly rebuked and rejected Satan – banishing him from his presence. With Peter, however, it is different. The Lord says “Go behind me,” that is “follow me.” Jesus here invites Peter to imitate his humility and his willingness to suffer - indeed we may well claim that this Gospel passage contains not merely the first prediction of the passion of our Christ, but includes also the promise of Peter’s own suffering and death.”

newtheologicalmovement.blogspot.com/2011/08/did-jesus-really-call-peter-satan.html

Hi Denise 1957: I read the link you gave and its right on! it is just what I though the passage means. Thanks for the post.

 

[boomerang]

I did get a little carried away with the quotes from Protestant scholars…

That’s why we keep having to educate them…one…at…a…time…

:tiphat:

Thank you for posting all that “spam”! No, you didn’t get carried away. It was necessary. Sometimes you need a big hammer to pound those stubborn nails!

 

[guanophore]

1) There is no indication here of any sort of position over the others.

Yes, thinking in terms of “over” is a reflection of our “carnal” natures. Jesus’ method of leadership is servant leadership. The special Petrine gift of strengthening the brethren comes from being a Rock.

v22ff was the perfect opportunity for Jesus to say something along the lines of "there's a good shepherd, Peter". Instead Jesus chews him out for what seems to be Peter trying to do pastoral ministry. "What about this man?" Jesus essentially tells him that what happens to John is none of Peter's business - just about the exact opposite of what you would expect of Jesus was putting Peter in a position over John.

John was the youngest Apostle, and Peter took him under his wing early in their journeys together. Peter, James, and John were part of Jesus’ inner circle. Jesus was setting Peter apart, and letting him know that He had other plans for John, and this was not an occassion of “Peter, James, and John” as it had so often been.

The fact that Peter and John had different ministries and directions does not mean that they were none of each other’s “business”. John continued in unity with Peter and followed Peter’s leadership in all things.

It is clear from this passage that Jesus was denying Peter such a place as it seems he coveted.

If this is true, then the papacy is a result of Peter’s carnal lust for power, not the will of God.

LOL


First, you claim no such thing as “the Papacy” exists prior to it’s creation by the Latin communion. Now you claim it is a result to Peter’s carnal lust for power. You can’t have it both ways, Tomi.

Besides, James and John, the sons of Thunder, are much better recipients of such a charge, don’t you think?

"He was traveling toward Jerusalem. 54When His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them?” Luke 9:54

I am surprised that Catholics are not tamely and docilely going along with this theory. I mean, it would overthrow much of what is regarded as Sacred Tradition and the church structure and hierarchy, so I expect you would take it calmly. Not much at stake.

I think you lost me here. Are you saying that you think Catholics should go along with your assessment that Peter acted according to his fallen nature? how does that in any way abrogate the gifts and call of God, which are irevocable?

On the contrary, we see in Peter all of our humanity, our desires to avoid crucifixion, our tendencies to be insular, our need for complete dependency on God.

 

[spina1953]

SPAM-FREE POST

Peter – The Rock, Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward
Proved From Scripture

"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, 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.” (Matthew 16:13-19)

Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own; God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon the humble fisherman. In turn, Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way, and He declared, “Blessed are you” because the Father had already blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son. Speaking in His native tongue, Aramaic, Jesus gave Simon a new name, “Kepha”, the Aramaic word that means “rock”. Jesus declared, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.”

Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”, and obviously, “petros” is the more suitable form for a man’s name. From “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church”, but we must never lose sight of the fact that in the original language used by Jesus, Simon is clearly identified as the rock upon which the Church would be built by Jesus. Jesus announced His intention to establish His Church (singular – not “churches” plural) and His choice of Peter as its leader.

What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.

Matthew also tells us that Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

Isaiah 22:22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.

How does this relate to what we have learned from Matthew? In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Thus, we know that Jesus is a king who will reign forever. Matthew tells us that that King Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end. Although Peter died as a martyr (as Jesus foretold), the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office of royal steward that Jesus established in His royal court.

(cont.)

Hi Randy: I do like your posts. They are good information for us all. thanks for your work.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you for posting all that “spam”! No, you didn’t get carried away. It was necessary. Sometimes you need a big hammer to pound those stubborn nails!

:clapping:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy: I do like your posts. They are good information for us all. thanks for your work.

We’re a team. Let’s do this!

:tiphat:

 

[Sy_Noe]

You really think this answers my question?

When God changed a name it was a momentous event.
Abram which means high father was changed to Abraham father of nations. His wife Sarai, meaning my princes was changed to Sarah meaning Mother of all nations. We know that God promised to Abraham 5 He took him outside and said: “Look up at the sky and count the stars, if you can. Just so,” he added, “shall your descendants be.” The name change was indicative of the role that God had for him. Not only is the the name change significant but what the name is changed to is also significant.
Jacob wrestles with an angle and has his name which means supplanter changed to Israel meaning having power with God. He had stolen his inheritance God wanted to make sure that is inheritance is from God and not through his manipulation. There is a lot of reasons put forth for this name change and the exact meaning is disputed but one thing is clear with each name change there is a significant change a new life that these people lead.
Peter is no different. He is the only one who has his name changed in the New Testament. His name is changed to Rock. Like those before him with name changes it is not insignificant. It is the beginning of a change. Like Abraham who is father of a nation Peter is who Jesus is building His Church upon. Like Jacob who was not perfect, Peter is not perfect, get behind me Satan, but it wasn’t out of selfishness but out of love of Jesus misplace as it was. It wasn’t until the Holy Spirit descends on him that he becomes the rock Jesus knew he would be

Yes I really think I answered it well enough to present an alternative belief on a non Catholic forum. I showed you where the Baptist John was sent from God. Where he then testified Jesus was the Son of God, the Lamb of God. Where Andrew heard this and told his brother Simon. Then where Simon told the others. At which time Jesus named him Peter. And then where the others were also given the power to bind and loosen which is the function of keys.

You no doubt are fully aware I am sure that Christians have differing beliefs as to whether Peter was the rock or whether the rock was what Peter had professed.

Jesus on other occasions referenced the OT as do you here. For instance He said while you may have heard an eye for an eye in the OT, He now said turn the cheek. But in Matthew 16 He did not bring up the OT. He did not say as those OT names were changed, for that reason I am making this NT name change. You must read that into it.

So the significance could be the Catholic belief. Or the significance could be the Protestant interpretation. That being the rock upon which Christ meant for His Church to be built is what Peter shared with all the others, the belief that Christ is the Savior the Son of God. And therefore the significance of the name change was due to what Peter professed to all the others.

Now I know Catholics have an elaborate breakdown of the meaning of rock but so do Protestants. And neither of which have been able to agree on it. So I really don’t think we are on an internet forum going to be able to prove and convince the other when neither side has been able to up until this point.

So for me In the end I am left with belief and faith. Karen107 said it so well I think in defending the Catholic faith when she said, “That’s what I believe as truth. People may not accept that but this is the way I accept it and why I am Catholic”.

And for others what they believe is why they are not. Sometimes I think we must simply agree to disagree on matters of faith and belief. Because when it comes to the one ultimate truth of the heavens, truly at the core, faith is in the end all any of us truly have on this earth.

Peace be upon you in your faith. God bless!