K
KathleenGee
Guest
If Peter was not considered the rock of the Church, was not the person on whom Christ founded His church, then what do Protestants think the early Christians perceived Peter as being???
- Status
P
prodromos
Guest
I believe they would perceive him as one of the people on whom Christ built His Church, along with the other apostles and the prophets, since that is what scripture plainly states.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Anywhere you like.
R
rick607
Guest
Jesus Christ was the Rock that the Christian Church ( Christ ones ) was built. Nothing to do with a human beginning although many churches would like to inflate themselves into the # 1 position. Petros used here for Peter means a small stone. Jesus uses a play on words here with petra which means foundation boulder. nt is clear Christ is that foundation. Acts 4:11-12. 1 Cor 3:11 and THE HEAD of the church Eph 5 :23.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Podromos,
Thanks for your clarification…but Peter is mentioned 180 plus times where as John and James far less…would the evangelists also demonstrate his primacy?
And – there are many academic Protestant theologians who affirm Christ definitely used the Aramaic, translated into Greek, that pertained to a person’s name, not an abstract symbol.
His declaration of faith was rather the movement of the Holy Spirit in response to Peter being named as head of Christ’ Church, and that the Church of Rome was founded purely for ecclesial reasons vs the Byzantine/Constantinople that was partially founded on imperialistic reasons, and why when there were disputes, Rome would come back stating the issue is ecclesial, and not relevant to imperial.
I don’t know if you saw the post, but Randy provided a good number of Protestant theologians affirming the Catholic position of Peter, my seminar providing 3 references, including Raymond Brown.
Thanks for your clarification…but Peter is mentioned 180 plus times where as John and James far less…would the evangelists also demonstrate his primacy?
And – there are many academic Protestant theologians who affirm Christ definitely used the Aramaic, translated into Greek, that pertained to a person’s name, not an abstract symbol.
His declaration of faith was rather the movement of the Holy Spirit in response to Peter being named as head of Christ’ Church, and that the Church of Rome was founded purely for ecclesial reasons vs the Byzantine/Constantinople that was partially founded on imperialistic reasons, and why when there were disputes, Rome would come back stating the issue is ecclesial, and not relevant to imperial.
I don’t know if you saw the post, but Randy provided a good number of Protestant theologians affirming the Catholic position of Peter, my seminar providing 3 references, including Raymond Brown.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I wouldn’t expect anything less from Protestant theologians, themselves being spiritual and intellectual children of Roman Catholicism.
P
Porknpie
Guest
Rick,
**Here’s an excellent response to your statement ** on Peter being a small stone.
What you are doing in suggesting this is calling St. Peter … a girl.
Now certainly, Jesus would have known by looking at Peter, and knowing him from before time began, that St. Peter was not …a …girl.In speaking, Jesus CHANGED Peter’s name, giving him the title Kepha in Aramaic, the same word are “Rock”. But translated to Greek, there are male and female roots of the same word for rock. Hence, Peter is called petros, not petra.
R
rick607
Guest
I think some miss " The Main Rock ( Jesus )of the “church” and by Church I don’t mean Catholic, Baptist ,Lutheran or any other man made religion. By Church , Jesus being that cornerstone which the Christian body of believers started. No doubt Peter with his open mouth insert foot style had a great leadership part as did many in the early spreading of the Gospel. I’m sure from time to time he remembered those denial times past. But forgetting the past and moving forward is all we can do, and he did ! Imagine that time in history. Just trying to get the truth out…no agendas…
P
pablope
Guest
And ain’t this the truth also?
Significant Name Changes and see their similarity to the charge after the name chane:
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.”**
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Thank you, Rick.
But the name Peter is indeed the personal form of both Aramaic and Greek. Those were the languages…of Christ Himself and His words translated into Greek.
Our Lord said His Holy Spirit would always be with us. We have to draw on the Holy Spirit…and reason…to discern what is the authentic meaning…that is to bring us into communion in the Holy Trinity and with each other.
There are numerous Protestant theologians, of which Randy has shared here on CAF Answers, that affirm the Catholic Church is correct in this understanding.
Peter is not professing declaration of faith but – in the Holy Spirit moving him in response to Christ’s choosing him as head…and affirming such appointment is not drawing on Peter’s capabilities or lack of, but of Christ’s chosing. Big difference.
If we take human authority out, then we are in the position to chose what we want to understand rather than the tradition of faith passed down to us through the apostles and their successors, the bishops.
But the name Peter is indeed the personal form of both Aramaic and Greek. Those were the languages…of Christ Himself and His words translated into Greek.
Our Lord said His Holy Spirit would always be with us. We have to draw on the Holy Spirit…and reason…to discern what is the authentic meaning…that is to bring us into communion in the Holy Trinity and with each other.
There are numerous Protestant theologians, of which Randy has shared here on CAF Answers, that affirm the Catholic Church is correct in this understanding.
Peter is not professing declaration of faith but – in the Holy Spirit moving him in response to Christ’s choosing him as head…and affirming such appointment is not drawing on Peter’s capabilities or lack of, but of Christ’s chosing. Big difference.
If we take human authority out, then we are in the position to chose what we want to understand rather than the tradition of faith passed down to us through the apostles and their successors, the bishops.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Peter is the rock. On Peter AND Peter’s confession of Faith, Christ’s builds His (Christ) Church.
Christ is still the Head of His Church:
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born[c] of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he[d] might be pre-eminent.
Ephesians 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
So as long as we are talking body parts, Christ is the Head. No other.
Christ DID leave us with His Apostles and their descendants, whom He gave authority to bind and lose.
This is clear when we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government:
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
Our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles in return then established more of His Churches throughout the world through their successors.
Add to that the what the Church Fathers and Church history have witnessed and this becomes clear and irrevocable.
Christ is still the Head of His Church:
Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born[c] of all creation; 16 for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 He is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning, the first-born from the dead, that in everything he[d] might be pre-eminent.
Ephesians 4:15 Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, 16 from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.
Ephesians 1:22 and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church, 23 which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.
So as long as we are talking body parts, Christ is the Head. No other.
Christ DID leave us with His Apostles and their descendants, whom He gave authority to bind and lose.
This is clear when we look at the whole of Scriptures, we can see different orders in Church Government:
We (those that are not ordained) are the laity. We are known as “saints” Romans 1:7). And yes, we are also a priesthood. We can look at a little more in 1st Peter here: 1 Peter 2:4-10. Where priesthood is mentioned twice. So yes we are a priesthood. But when we look at the rest of Scriptures, we see that there are orders in this priesthood.
We see the Deacons in 1 Timothy 3:8-13 and in Acts 6:3. So we see different responsibilities between the Deacons and the rest of the laity. However, the Deacons are still part of the laity because they come from them. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Deacons.
We see the Presbyters/Elders (Priests) in 1 Timothy 5:17, in Acts 14:23 and in Titus 1:5. This is not the same Levite Priesthood. This is a Priesthood under our High Priest - Jesus Christ. These Priests are charged to preaching and teaching, as indicated in 1 Tim 5:17 above. However, the Priests also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibility as the Priests. Or that the Deacons have the same responsibility as the Priest.
We also see the Bishops (Overseers and also Elders at times) in 1 Timothy 3:1-2 and in Titus 1:7-9. The Bishops “oversee” the laity and the ordained (Deacons and Priests) in an assigned area. When we look at the Church’s 1st Council in Jerusalem in Acts 15, specifically verse 6 - we see that the non-ordained laity was not there to determine the Church’s direction - it was “The Apostles and the Elders”. The leadership of the Church. However, the Bishops also come from the laity. That does not mean that all the laity has the same responsibilities as the Bishops. Or that the Deacons and the Priests have the same responsibility as the Bishop.
Our Lord established His Church with the Apostles and the Apostles in return then established more of His Churches throughout the world through their successors.
Add to that the what the Church Fathers and Church history have witnessed and this becomes clear and irrevocable.
A
Abu
Guest
False.
Are you really interested in the truth? Then you should have it.
Answer by Fr. John Echert (EWTN) on 07-19-2003:
Extract:
“The original Aramaic name given to Simon by our Lord was “Cepha” which means rock. The Greek equivalent is “Petra” but since this is a feminine noun in Greek, it is rendered with the masculine ending as “Petros” in the New Testament. Contrary to what some non-Catholics claim, the use of “Petros” does not manifest an intention to regard Peter as a small stone rather than a rock but is simply done in accord with the rules of grammar and convention in the Greek. Such is obvious when we consider that the actual name given him by the Lord, “Cepha,” admits of NO such distinction between a small stone and large rock. To the best of my knowledge and based upon the work of other scholars I have read, I am not aware of another instance of this name in antiquity–certainly it was not commonly known or used. So our Lord was not only creating a new position within the New Covenant people but He appears to have done so with a new name.
“I highly recommend the book *Pope Fiction *by a convert to Catholicism, Steve Madrid, which addresses every imaginable attempt to discredit the papacy.”
On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that *Cephas *is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207].
“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”
“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence.” And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, OSB, 1987, Trinity Communications, p 77].
The Swiss Calvinist biblical scholar, Oscar Cullman, declared …”the Roman Catholic exegesis must be regarded as correct.” (See Peter, Apostle, Disciple, Martyr, 1953, p 18-20).
Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often.
[Keating, p 208-11].
Cephas is Aramaic for Rock and *Petra *is the Greek. When he said, “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church,” the two words meant the same thing.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Excellent post, my friend.
With the slight exception that Pope Fiction was written by Patrick Madrid. I suspect you, or the person you may have been quoting, was conflating Patrick Madrid with Steve Ray (yet another convert – go figure
), who wrote another great tome: Upon This Rock. I further think that Upon This Rock is the book that should be referenced here.
J
joe371
Guest
What a strange thing for anyone to say. How could anyone say, as if it were 100% fact, that “Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church”, unless of course said person has a direct line of communication with God?
J
joe371
Guest
J
joe371
Guest
And after that Jesus still says to Simon, renamed Cephas: “But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. **And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.”
**
J
joe371
Guest
No one claims the Peter is the greatest. Do you my friend see the pattern?
"But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."
"The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “**Feed my sheep.****”
**We can both cherry-pick passages; in the end, you defer to you, as the final authority (correct?) and I defer to Jesus’ church regarding the matter of the Petrine office.
Who, (if they were not deferring to their own authority vis-a-vis the teachings of Jesus) would be so bold as to say - “Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church”? Phew…
J
joe371
Guest
Peter, who was a sinful and fallible man, (nonetheless, the first to occupy the Petrine office, as per the teachings of the CC) was merely doing what you and I would have tried to do, (taking into consideration Peter’s lack of understanding at that specific time) namely, protecting Jesus. The idea of Jesus having to go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and then be killed, was a hard pill for Peter to swallow, at that specific moment in time. That all changed after Pentecost.
If you want to believe that Jesus was calling Peter the devil in a literal sense then you must also believe that literally, the devil wrote 2 books of your bible. You can’t have it both ways my friend.
J
joe371
Guest
:thumbsup:Unwittingly at the time, and out of devotion to Jesus, something all of us would have done, at that specific time in Peter’s life.
J
joe371
Guest
You said: “Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church”. This is simply your opinion and rhetoric i.e. circular reasoning - right? If not, then by whose authority do you make such a bold statement?Opinion and rhetoric. Circular reasoning.
- Status