Clarification on Mormon Belief

[spockrates]

Spockrates,

Catholics believe that Peter is the rock referred to in Matt 16:18. We also believe that Jesus Christ is a rock, and He is the chief cornerstone of the Church. We also believe that the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets. The Bishop of Rome, the successor of the apostle Peter, is the visible head of the Church, the physical symbol of unity of the Church. Jesus Christ is the ultimate head of the Church, and is the ultimate symbol of unity. We believe that the Eucharist, the actual body and blood of Christ, is the most sacred way that we can commune with each other, and with Jesus Christ.

Catholics believe that Matthew 16:18 shows a very clear poetic structure, and in Greek and Aramaic, this is made even more clear. The name “Peter” means “rock”. We believe that Simon was named Peter/Rock for a reason, and when we understand that the passage reads “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church…”(emphasis mine), we can see that Jesus is referring to Peter when He is talking about a rock. There was no need to say “thee” or anything of the sort instead of “this”, since we can now see that Peter means rock, and this is just one of the many poetic ways that the Bible tells us various messages.

Now, this has multiple meanings for Catholics. We believe that Peter and his successors all had and have primacy in the Church. Catholics believe that Peter had primacy among the apostles, and his successors had and have primacy among the bishops. The Pope is a bishop (remember, one is not ordained a Pope, since the only three Orders in Catholicism are deacon, priest, and bishop). While Jesus Christ is the head of the Church, the chief cornerstone, Peter and his successors are the visible heads of the Church, and this is important to us in many ways.

Peter as the rock also refers to his faith as well. Pope John Paul II gave a great homily on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul called “The Church is Built on Peter’s Faith and Fidelity”. Here are some important parts for you, and I think they will show the depth to which Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18, and why many of us are also amused/confused when others criticize our interpretation of the passage:

*" We are reflecting on this extraordinarily rich Gospel passage: the incarnate Word had revealed the Father to his disciples; now is the moment when the Father himself reveals his only Only-begotten Son to them. Peter receives inner enlightenment and courageously proclaims: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”.

These words on Peter’s lips come from the depths of God’s mystery. They reveal the intimate truth, the very life of God. And Peter, under the action of the divine Spirit, becomes a witness and confessor of this superhuman truth. His profession of faith thus forms the firm basis of the Church’s faith: “On this rock I will build my Church” (Mt 16:18). The Church of Christ is built on Peter’s faith and fidelity.

…

Could Saul have understood with his reason alone all that such an event entailed (referring to Acts 9)? Certainly not! It was, in fact, part of God’s mysterious plan. It would be the Father who would give Paul the grace of knowing the mystery of the redemption accomplished in Christ. It would be God who would enable him to understand the marvellous reality of the Church, which lives for Christ, with Christ and in Christ. And he, who had come to share in this truth, would continuously and tirelessly proclaim it to the very ends of the earth."*

So, Catholics believe that Peter/Rock is the rock referred to in Matt 16:18. And why is he the rock? Because of his faith, which led him to his revelation, which came from God through Jesus Christ, who is the chief cornerstone. Peter had primacy among the apostles, and that primacy continues today in his successors, in Catholic belief. Peter would have been nothing without Jesus Christ, who is the most important rock of the Church, and who unity ultimately is found in in the Church, symbolized in the Eucharist.

Spockrates, like Peter, you too can receive knowledge from God about the truth of His Church. You can read and read and read, and ask us many questions, however you have to pray to God sincerely to find the truth. It all ultimately comes through Jesus Christ, who is at the center of everything we believe, and we come to participate in His life through the sacraments.
*
“Today the Church again proclaims their (Peter and Paul) faith. It is our faith, the Church’s unchanging faith in Jesus, the only Saviour of the world; in Christ, the Son of the living God, who died and rose for us and for all humanity.”*

Yes, MT, what you say sounds reasonable to me. What Parker says sounds reasonable, too! So help me with the deeper question: You are both sincere, but how do I realize which of you speaks the truth?

 

[spockrates]

Thank you for your reply; but I feel that you didn’t really consider my post very carefully did you! You hadn’t “mentioned any prophecy,” that is true; but the example you gave was one of a prophecy. You have also disregarded the argument I gave about how long it took for that prophecy to be fulfilled—during which time how else could the Jews have known that Moses had been a prophet? You also disregarded the fact that the fulfillment of that prophecy cannot be empirically proven beyond doubt. A Muslim could claim that it refers to Mohamed, and that would be just as possible as the Christian claim that it refers to Jesus Christ. The point I was trying to make was that that is not how people generally become convinced that something is from God or not. …

Yes, Zerinus, sorry for not explaining why I seem so careless!



It comes from being a sequential thinker, I think. Rather than take in the view of the entire, beautiful forest, I look at one tree at a time. And I’m looking for agreement and understanding between you and I, not disagreement nor some kind of debate. I want to agree with you about every tree (if possible) until we come to the same conclusion about the forest we see.

I’d like to consider this tree, first, before you and I move on to the next one you mention: I’d like to consider whether or not Moses says that God told him to tell the human race that God will predict the future as evidence that He is the source of His words and not the sock puppet of a prophet He uses to convey those words to our race. Do you agree that this is what Moses claims God told Him?

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

If you agree to that, then we can see whether Moses speaks the truth by looking at an actual prediction of the future or two, which is the next tree. You see?

 

[ParkerD]

Yes, sir! Though I’ve lost faith in my previous religion (Evangelicalism), and though I’ve lost faith in the Bible and reason, I’m still trusting God to somehow reveal the truth to me. That’s why I’m still asking questions. My hope is that He will reveal something to you, or Marie, or someone else that He has not revealed to me. That way, I suppose, the one who shares the wisdom that sets me free will also share in my joy of seeing the shackles fall to the ground. I suppose God will share our joy as well.



The loss of my Evangelical faith has brought me into this desert. I have never stopped trusting in Christ to lead me to milk and honey! I just have a strong prompting from the Holy Ghost that I cannot get there on my own. I need someone to show me which way is His Way.



I am trusting, Parker. And I am yielding to His prompting me to keep asking questions of you and others until the truth be know.

Spockrates,
You are a craftsman with words. There is a delight in doing that–no question about it. Socrates and Plato had that gift, as did Shakespeare and many gifted writers through the ages.

I think this is a case where the craftsmanship may be part of a “stumbling block” rather than a “building block”, because trading questions and answers across the internet does not really, deep-down, match the scripturally taught learning process for gaining the complete foundation whereby the Holy Spirit can teach you all things and “bring all things to your remembrance.” When you desire to match your “yielding” to the scripturally taught learning process, and desire as deeply as when Socrates, as the story goes, told the young man that when he wanted to learn as earnestly as he had wanted to be able to breathe when Socrates was holding his head under the water (if I have understood the story), then you will understand what you need to do that I had written to you about before (one approach) or that both Zerinus and I have written to you about (a companion approach that links up with the other one). Those companion approaches are perfectly illustrated by the passage about the Ethiopian you have already been led to think about. But you’re not going to arrive at where the Ethiopian arrived–not going to get there–on the internet.

When Naaman was healed by washing seven times in the River Jordan, he learned that he needed to humble himself and follow the pattern he had been told would bring him healing. When he finally humbled himself enough to follow that pattern, even though his mind didn’t agree with it since he was expecting and wanting something else, he was healed. You might re-read that wonderful example, and think about it. Blessings to you, kind friend.

 

[zerinus]

Yes, Zerinus, sorry for not explaining why I seem so careless!



It comes from being a sequential thinker, I think. Rather than take in the view of the entire, beautiful forest, I look at one tree at a time. And I’m looking for agreement and understanding between you and I, not disagreement nor some kind of debate. I want to agree with you about every tree (if possible) until we come to the same conclusion about the forest we see.

I’d like to consider this tree, first, before you and I move on to the next one you mention: I’d like to consider whether or not Moses says that God told him to tell the human race that God will predict the future as evidence that He is the source of His words and not the sock puppet of a prophet He uses to convey those words to our race. Do you agree that this is what Moses claims God told Him?

And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken?

When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him.

(Deuteronomy 18:21-22)

If you agree to that, then we can see whether Moses speaks the truth by looking at an actual prediction of the future or two, which is the next tree. You see?

Absolutely, no problem! So let’s start by applying that test to Moses himself, shall we? After all, he was the one who gave us the test; therefore he is the first person to be tested by his own rule! He was a Hebrew prophet—in fact the greatest of them! So if that test would be good enough for anybody, it should be good enough for him. Let’s test him by his own rule! Let us suppose you were a Jew living in the time of Moses, or maybe two or three hundred later. How would you apply that test to determine if he had been a true prophet or not? Which one of his prophecies would you take to apply the test to? I look forward to your reply.

 

[zerinus]

Thank you, Parker, for reasoning (or thinking this through) with me!



Yes, I understand why you believe the truth Peter spoke is the rock to which Jesus referred. I also understand why Marie, or MT, or a Catholic Carl would believe Peter is the rock of which Christ was speaking.

When I was an Evangelical, I used the same reasoning you have used myself. I still see such as valid logical arguments supporting your view. However, having spent much time listening to Catholics with an open mind, I see that they are being reasonable, as well. Their logical arguments are no less lacking in validity. The upshot is that, apart form trusting the assistance of someone who knows the true meaning of Christ’s words to Peter, I’m at a loss to know which interpretation is true! (If you desire to experience what I mean, try starting a discussion thread in the Apologetic Forum, here.) I see no factual errors (FE) or logical errors (LE) in support of your conclusion that the truth of who Christ is, is the rock. I also see no FE or LE in the rational arguments of Catholics in support of the view that Peter is the rock of whom Jesus was speaking. The upshot is that I’m at a loss to know which interpretation is the interpretation.



I’m willing to discuss this further, but my current though is that reason and the Bible alone are not sufficient to adequately rule out one interpretation or the other. However, if the Holy Ghost is leading you to go down this rabbit trail, I’m willing to follow you. Perhaps He will reveal something new to me through you? As for me, He seems to be leading me to ask you and Zerinus and Marie and MT what is the most reliable way to determine the truth.

On the subject of Peter in Matthew 16:18, you might be interested to know that the Eastern Orthodox Church has always interpreted that scripture in the same way as the Mormons do. They believe that the “rock” on which the Church should be built was Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, rather than on himself. Here is a link that provides some information on that. I have also found a very well researched article on the Internet on how the early Church Fathers understood this verse. I have not read it all the way through yet, since it is a rather long article; but it appears to confirm that the early Church Fathers didn’t understand that verse to refer to Peter himself either. You can read it here. However, looking at your question in a broader context, I don’t think that you will find the answer you seek by just looking at isolated verses like this. You are more likely to find what you are looking for by looking at the complete package of God’s revealed word to man, than by just focusing on a few isolated verses. To us of course that includes the modern LDS scriptures.

 

[Marie5890]

Thanks for helping me get to know you!



I suppose you had a crisis of faith similar to mine, with the difference being that you were a Mormon and I was an Evangelical.

And I’m curious to what extent you keep people out of the loop in your seeking advice from God. I think what you mean is that you don’t seek counsel from lay persons, but you do look to the spiritual experts for guidance. That is, you might trust Matthew the Apostle to give you wisdom by reading his gospel, or trust the authors of the Catechism of the Catholic Church to make things clear when you are unsure about the meaning of what you read in Sacred Scripture. Is this your method of obtaining truth and keeping free of deception? Are you putting faith in the Holy Spirit to speak to you through the Bible and the CCC?

Crisis of faith is exactly what I was experiencing.
I pretty much keep people out of the loop entirely in the sense that I will only ask questions of them if I am looking for clarification or explanation. But I dont look to them to convince me of anything. I dont debate. And often times I am skepical of their answers. But I bring that skepticism to God. And then I just leave it there.

And not all of my questions and doubts have been answered. But I do find that as time goes by I have less and less on my list.

For example–Eucharist Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Sounded silly to me for the longest time. Even told God that. I know that the idea of “sitting with the Lord” for an hour comes from His agony in the Garden when the disciples fell asleep and He asked if they could not even stay awake with Him for one hour.
COMPLETELY skeptical. But I thought of that scripture and thought OK…I could spend an hour in front of the monstrance even in my doubts and skepticism.

So in faith (with doubts in hand) I went. (My parish has Eurcharist Adoration on the first Thrus of each month). I did it for a few months.
Eventually my doubts faded and I look forward to it with peace and gratitude.
No one answered anything for me. I just went forward in faith that Yes, I could spend an hour with the Lord.

When it comes to the Real Presence I still have faith and doubts hand in hand. God knows this. But I do feel very close with Him when I am in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

I dont expect perfect knowledge. But I can exercise faith, even while I doubt.
God knows this. He isnt asking me to have perfect knowledge. Just faith.

 

[catholic-rcia]

They believe that the “rock” on which the Church should be built was Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, rather than on himself.

As a Catholic I do not have to go and read pages upon pages to get this. A short prayer will suffice. Is this pride? Maybe

Having faith in our Lord and God Jesus is the Rock of faith. Peter was chosen to be the leader because of this strong faith in God. Not because he was on top compared to the other Apostles, rather because he was on the bottom. He was strong out of defeat, out of his weakness, out of suffering. He denied Christ 3 times and yet he is our first Pope, ironic you might say…simply Peter is us. He denied Christ 3 times, looked into the eyes of Jesus, naked, emptiness, he had nothing to offer, nothing to give to make up for what he had done. All he had left in every pour of his being was that he was loved by the very one he had helped kill. His Creator!

Peter got it…Its very deep, its very personal when you come face to face with such truth, where the Crucifix becomes your focal point. Confession becomes your focal point, Eucharist becomes your life…Jesus becomes your love, your center.

“rather than on himself”

This is Catholic, this is Christianity, to die to self.

I will stick by this dicernment as I know the diary of the Church well, not educated so much in it, rather saved by it. When the arm reaches down and pulls you out of the abyse you have no where else to go. Peter understood this as I…
In Christ
www.utahmission.com

 

[Marie5890]

Spockrates,

I will keep you in my specific prayers now that I know you are dealing with a crisis of faith.

They are not fun and are a very real spiritual struggle of darkness (or at least that is how mine felt).

I dont possess any real answers for you, and I know you have very real and pressing questions.

All I have to offer is faith.

My prayers in Christ.

Marie

 

[TheosisM]

Spockrates,

I will quickly address the issue of the Eastern Orthodox and the Early Church Fathers and Matthew 16:18.

First, we must remember the depth to which Catholics understand Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18. It is not just that Peter is the rock (which of course he is, since Simon’s new name Peter means rock), and that grammatically the phrase “this rock” refers back to Peter/rock, but that we have to understand why he is the rock here, and that is because of his faith. Behind this faith is Jesus Christ. Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18, Jesus Christ is a rock, the chief cornerstone of the Church (and the head of the Church), and the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the Church. We can see that there are a number of rocks here.

Here are some helpful excerpts from the text “His Broken Body-Understanding and Healing the Schism Between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches” by Laurent Cleenewerck, a priest in the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Orthodox Church in America. This book is very helpful because, although he maintains a strict Orthodox position on all issues, he doesn’t descend into polemics, and recognizes where differences are mere semantics and/or are easily reconciled when understanding the entire position. Note that here I am talking about the issue of Matthew 16:18, and not the role of the Pope in the Church, since there are many differences in our understanding of it (we both recognize the primacy, but not the same jurisdictional powers), and those aren’t relevant here.

**"At this point, I would like to present what I would consider a standard Orthodox interpretation of this passage:

In an instrumental sense, Peter is ‘the rock’ or ‘rock:’ grafted by the power of God onto the divine Rock, in order to become the first stone of Christ’s edifice. How did Simon (Peter) become ‘rock’? By confessing Jesus as Messiah and Son of the Living God. And after him, all who confess Jesus with the same faith also become rocks and stones like Peter. Hence, the double interpretation Rock=Peter and Rock=Faith are not mutually exclusive. This is the conclusion presented by two foremost Orthodox scholars in The Primacy of Peter:

We may conclude that the early Church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter’s position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period…Their interpretations of Jesus’ promise to Peter–‘You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my Church’–converge with those modern exegetes: the rock is Peter. But they also interpreted the rock as Peter’s confession.(emphasis in text) The Church is built on Peter, or the Church is built upon the rock, which is Peter’s confession. We cannot find two distinct groups of exegetes, one with whom states that ‘the rock is Peter,’ while the other concludes that ‘the rock is Peter’s confession.’ In the writings of any given author, one can find both interpretations simultaneously (Kesich)…[T]he great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the Faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded."

**

The author then goes on to show the importance of this “dual rock” to the Early Church Fathers, and if we read the ECFs, we see that they clearly state that Peter is the rock of Matt 16:18, and that they also emphasize why, which is because of his faith, his confession. Catholics have no issue with this interpretation, since this is how we see it as well (Pope John Paul II’s homily cited in my last post shows this). The Church is not just built on Peter, but is built on his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of God, which goes back to Christ being the chief cornerstone. Peter is not the rock just because of himself, but because of the ultimate rock, Christ. The author also states** “Secondly, this review shows great freedom in the interpretation of this text: the Rock could be equally and simultaneously understood as Christ, Peter, or the Faith of Peter.”**

Please note that while he does not agree with everything that we as Catholics believe on this issue, he does show that the ECFs saw Peter as the rock, and they understood why, namely his faith in Jesus Christ. ECFs that identified Peter as the rock (some including his confession/faith simultaneously as the rock) include Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose of Milan, Pope Damasus I, Pope Leo I, Tertullian, Augustine, Origen, John Chrysostom, Hilary of Potiers, Basil the Great, etc.

Spockrates, to answer your last question, yes, I can understand that the positions on various Biblical texts sound reasonable, otherwise people wouldn’t believe those interpretations. What you now have to do is pray to God for an answer. It’s really all up to you at this point. We can provide all the “evidences”, however like Peter, you have to become a rock. Please do some research on your own, read the Bible, and pray sincerely to God. This is what you have to do. We can’t do it for you, we can only show you what we know and believe.

 

[Xavierlives]

Yes, MT, what you say sounds reasonable to me. What Parker says sounds reasonable, too! So help me with the deeper question: You are both sincere, but how do I realize which of you speaks the truth?

Their answers are going to be the same. Pray and see where the Holy Spirit leads you.

 

[kikkichan]

…

Spockrates,
I think you may have misunderstood my meaning. I would say that Jesus said exactly what He meant, and that “this rock” in Matthew 16:18 definitely does not mean Peter but means more than the Person, Jesus Christ–it means the absolute and completely pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ, and that He brings to mankind what He promised and witnessed that He brought to mankind, because of the witness of the Holy Ghost. “Build my church” means “build my congregation of believers in Me.”
…

ParkerD,

Hi. I agree with your recognition of the significance of Peter’s response and I might add and acceptance after knowledge. That is:

the absolute and completely pure knowledge and acceptance that Jesus is the Christ’

Meanwhile I have a question re: changing someones name, which is not a trivial event.

Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to “Rock” if, in the very same sentence He uses of the word “Rock” as a reference to something else? I think if Jesus meant ‘and upon this absolute and completely pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ’ he would have called that the rock, and not Simon. He’s either referring to Simon both times or he’s referring to something else both times. And since his name did become Peter …

Also, Even though I don’t quite see how “Build my church” means “build my congregation of believers in Me.” I think you are pointing out that you agree that Peter was being singled out in a pretty substantial way. I would even say to that you’re comment supports the notion that Matthew 16:18 definitely does mean Peter.

…

Jesus spoke with clarity–the grammar and syntax of His spoken words, in the original language or in translation when the translation is faithful to the original grammatical expression in the new language, are quite clear, but can be made ambiguous by those who wish to make them ambiguous. If Jesus had meant “upon Peter I will build my church,” He would not have used the word “this”, but instead “upon ‘thee’ (or “thy leadership” or “thy apostolic authority” I will build my church.” That would be the grammar He would have used if He meant Peter.
…

I think that both uses of the term “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 refer to Simon. If the use of “this” is an issue, consider that the importance of this proclamation is not for Simon only.

and as always, this is just me talking
prayers,
–kc

 

[ParkerD]

ParkerD,

Hi. I agree with your recognition of the significance of Peter’s response and I might add and acceptance after knowledge. That is:

the absolute and completely pure knowledge and acceptance that Jesus is the Christ’

Meanwhile I have a question re: changing someones name, which is not a trivial event.

Why did Jesus change Simon’s name to “Rock” if, in the very same sentence He uses of the word “Rock” as a reference to something else? I think if Jesus meant ‘and upon this absolute and completely pure knowledge that Jesus is the Christ’ he would have called that the rock, and not Simon. He’s either referring to Simon both times or he’s referring to something else both times. And since his name did become Peter …

Also, Even though I don’t quite see how “Build my church” means “build my congregation of believers in Me.” I think you are pointing out that you agree that Peter was being singled out in a pretty substantial way. I would even say to that you’re comment supports the notion that Matthew 16:18 definitely does mean Peter.

I think that both uses of the term “Rock” in Matthew 16:18 refer to Simon. If the use of “this” is an issue, consider that the importance of this proclamation is not for Simon only.

and as always, this is just me talking
prayers,
–kc

Hi, Kikkichan,
I hope you and your loved ones are well, and am mindful of your family in my prayers.

Thanks for sharing your perspective here. I need to clarify what I had meant.

I agree that one can have “knowledge” without “acceptance”, but the kind of knowledge I was meaning could only come by acceptance, since it is revealed knowledge and that only comes when one has a heart that is an accepting and believing heart. But, yes, acceptance is vitally important.

If we think about what Jesus had in mind when He used the word “rock”, I think a reader of the Old Testament and of 1 Peter 2:4-8, if they are also familiar with the literary purpose of an “allusion” in that an allusion brings with it a whole connotation of meanings because the allusion is familiar to the readers, will recognize that the word “rock” is an allusion. Christ used it with a strong teaching purpose in mind, no doubt, since it is a “strong” word.

Simon Peter, whom He was addressing while also teaching the other apostles, would have known the Old Testament allusion Christ was bringing to that moment of teaching. He would have immediately recognized the allusion, and I think we can see that in 1 Peter 2:4-8. It is completely clear to Peter that Jesus Christ is the “rock”, the chief corner stone of Zion, and “he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.” (Can some not see that this statement “he that believeth on him shall not be confounded” is a re-statement of the Savior’s expression that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” The expression “it” goes right back to the word “rock”, and the words “this rock” go right back to the process and the effect of the revealed knowledge which Peter had in his soul, about Christ as the Savior and the Anointed One, the Son of God.)

Note that Simon Peter did not receive a “name change” such as Saul later received. He received a “name addendum”. The people most intimately associated with Peter are John, the Savior Himself, and Peter himself, and each of them refer to him as “Simon Peter” or “Simon” or “Peter” interchangeably. See 2 Peter 1:1 as an example, and many places in the book of John.

I can’t emphasize enough that Christ taught using the Biblical record of the Jews whenever the teaching moment was appropriate to do that. He would not bring “rock” into the teaching moment while knowing perfectly well that the apostles, if they had testimonies that He was the promised Messiah, would know that He fulfilled Isaiah 28:16 as the sure foundation of Zion. He would not make an allusion from Isaiah and abruptly change the meaning of what His prophet, one of the great prophets, had written. That is not how the Savior teaches. He emphasized getting the right meaning from all the earlier prophets, not discarding their teachings.

The word “church” would tie back to the allusion to Isaiah 28:16. What is “Zion”? It is a covenant people, a “congregation of believers” (my words). “He that believeth” uses the sure foundation (the revealed knowledge that Jesus is the Christ and will bring again Zion to the world) to never be confounded, or in other words to never fall prey to the temptations and captivity of the adversary. The word “build” adds to the allusion by relying on the foundation in order to “build”.

I don’t think the Savior was saying Peter’s knowledge was exclusive to Peter. Think of His mother, Mary, and of Anna and Simeon at the time of His birth, and of the prophet Isaiah. Jesus was saying that the same knowledge Peter had was the knowledge that His entire church (the builders of Zion, the congregation of believers) would need to have: revealed knowledge by the guiding power of the Holy Spirit. That is rock-solid knowledge, which cannot be shaken by storms or ridicule.

Thanks again, Kikkichan. I hope this has made some sense as far as what I was trying to convey.

 

[TheosisM]

Perhaps I should be even more clear on the Catholic belief on the matter of Matthew 16:18.

Firstly, again let me reference the homily “Church is Built on Peter’s Faith and Fidelity” by Pope John Paul II, which was given on the Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul in 2000. Peter’s faith was no different than the faith of any of us. Indeed, there is only one Faith, one Lord, one Baptism. Now, Catholics believe that Peter was chosen to have primacy among the apostles, and this is clear in the Bible. We believe that Matthew 16:18 also emphasizes this primacy, with Simon’s name being changed to Peter, which means “Rock” (and being called Simon Peter also emphasizes that Simon is the Rock-Simon Rock), and that this primacy would continue in Peter’s successors. It therefore makes perfect sense that Simon’s name was changed to Peter/Rock, or even if it was a “name addendum” (which Catholics obviously accept, since this is not only found in the Bible, but the Catechism and other official Catholic documents), Simon Rock. The grammatical structure of Matthew 16:18 makes sense when we understand that Peter/Cephas/Petros means Rock. “This rock” must refer back to Peter, otherwise it makes no sense. This conversation did not happen in English.

Pope John Paul II emphasized in the homily that the faith of Peter (and Paul) is also our faith:

"Today the Church again proclaims their (Peter and Paul) faith. It is our faith, the Church’s unchanging faith in Jesus, the only Saviour of the world; in Christ, the Son of the living God, who died and rose for us and for all humanity."

This brings me back to a point I brought up before: Catholics recognize that it is the faith of Peter, in Jesus Christ, that caused him to become the rock of Matthew 16:18. Indeed, the very name of Pope John Paul II’s homily is “Church is Built on Peter’s Faith and Fidelity”. Ultimately, we see that the spiritual rock, the true reality of the unity of the Church, is Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church, and the Eucharist is the symbol of this unity that is found in Christ. It is also why the Eucharist is commonly called “Communion”. The Catechism refers to Jesus Christ as the “living stone”.

So, it is erroneous to present the Catholic position as an either/or situation of Jesus Christ being the Rock or Peter being the rock. They are both rocks in different senses, and this is the Catholic teaching. Peter is NOT the rock/cornerstone referred to in Isaiah 28:16, and Catholics never claim this. Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, and this is also found in the Catechism (and it even says that the Church is built on the foundation of Jesus Christ! (756)). As I presented earlier, the Eastern Orthodox and ECF position, as well as the Catholic position, is a both/and, not an either/or position.

Let me close by emphasizing: Catholics believe that Peter is the rock referred to in Matthew 16:18. Simon was given the name Peter which means Rock for a reason (who else did He give a new name to?), and we see the primacy of Peter among the apostles in the Bible. Catholics believe that Simon became the Rock through his faith and his revelation, and that this faith is common to us all. Peter being the rock of Matthew 16:18 does not diminish from Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone of Isaiah 28:16. Peter and his successors are the visible heads of the Church. Jesus Christ is the spiritual head. He is the head of His own body. The Eucharist, the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, is the ultimate symbol of the unity and foundation of the Church, Jesus Christ, for Catholics.

 

[ParkerD]

TheosisM and Kikkichan,
I was awakened by a dream and can’t sleep now, so I guess I had best go ahead and complete the thought I had offered previously.

Here are some important verses in the New Testament:

Luke 6: 48-49
48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.
49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

There is a somewhat similar passage in Matthew, but different enough that it appears Christ used this kind of simile more than once in teaching His disciples and particularly the apostles.

How a scriptural scholar can take the words of Matthew 16:18 and not see an allusion by the use of the words “rock” and “build” is something I will never understand, except for the deliberate need to justify a teaching that was not intended by the Savior but is absolutely essential for the Catholic position concerning the source of her supposed authority. So of course it will be argued extensively and with much fanfare. But an unbiased scholar, familiar with the Old Testament and its many references to God building a temple through His covenant people or through the Branch, and its so vivid reference in Isaiah 28:16 to Christ as the sure foundation, will most certainly understand that the apostles would have known that Christ was making the same allusion they were already familiar with from His teachings. Jesus was a consistent teacher, always. He repeated His teachings in various ways, over and over again. He also used His surroundings as a point of reference for His teachings.

Christ would not allude to one of the most famous and impressive verses in the Biblical record the apostles were familiar with, and then suddenly change the meaning and thus overturn and discard what an inspired prophet had written, especially concerning Himself and His mission on the earth. He is the most intelligent teacher who ever lived. He simply would not do that. Peter knew precisely what Christ was talking about, and demonstrated that by his own teaching years later.

It is a case where a stone of stumbling has been created as a justification for a set of beliefs, just as the Jews became the builders who disallowed the foundation stone and thus stumbled when they had the evidence before their very eyes.

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates,
You are a craftsman with words. There is a delight in doing that–no question about it. Socrates and Plato had that gift, as did Shakespeare and many gifted writers through the ages.

Thank you, Parker, for saying so. I suppose there is a kind of art to creating different ways to ask the same question, which is, “Why?” But discovering why something is true is better than merely being told what is true and never knowing why, I’ve experienced. If I never learned from Socrates to ask why someone believed, I’d never know why I should believe, too. If I only asked what to believe, I’d still be an Evangelical and never bother to ask Mormons or Catholics why I should believe any differently. And you, or Marie, or anyone would never have the opportunity to reason with me. You see?

I think this is a case where the craftsmanship may be part of a “stumbling block” rather than a “building block”, because trading questions and answers across the internet does not really, deep-down, match the scripturally taught learning process for gaining the complete foundation whereby the Holy Spirit can teach you all things and “bring all things to your remembrance.”

Well, I don’t think you are saying that it is wrong to ask questions, for you are trying to answer mine. What I think you are saying is that the goal of asking questions should be to find the truth, rather than find a way to avoid what is true. I’d have to agree with you! And I tell you the truth, my goal is to seek wisdom (AKA truth). As Socrates said of genuine philosophers (not their stoic impostors):

Wise, I may not call them, for that name is too great and belongs to God alone. “Lovers of Wisdom,” or philosophers, would be a more harmonious and befitting title.

(Phaedrus)

The word philosopher actually means a lover of wisdom.

Still, even though I’m sincerely seeking to know what is true, I might be going about it the wrong way. Please tell me how do you know my questions are resulting in my avoiding, rather than finding, the truth. Which of these possibilities do you think explains how you know?

1. 
   *]The Bible or the Book of Mormon or some other authoritative book indicates that asking questions on a discussion forum is not a good way to discern the truth
   
   *]Some religious authority indicates that asking questions on a discussion forum is not a good way to discern the truth
   
   *]Reason tells you that answering questions on a discussion forum is not a good way to discern the truth
   
   *]A witness of the Holy Spirit tells you that asking questions on a discussion forum is not the way to discern the truth
   
   Perhaps your answer to this question might show me how to know which way to go to find the One who I seek.
   
   
   

   When you desire to match your “yielding” to the scripturally taught learning process, and desire as deeply as when Socrates, as the story goes, told the young man that when he wanted to learn as earnestly as he had wanted to be able to breathe when Socrates was holding his head under the water (if I have understood the story), then you will understand what you need to do that I had written to you about before (one approach) or that both Zerinus and I have written to you about (a companion approach that links up with the other one).

   Socrates, like Christ, had many enemies because he revealed the truth about them that they did not want others to know. Many told scandalous lies about him, as did the enemies of Christ slander our Lord, and as did (I’ve heard) the enemies of Joseph Smith tell lies about him, too.
   
   I’ve read all of Plato’s dialogs, and have found no evidence of him doing such a cruel thing to anyone. In fact, he spent a good deal of his time discussing with others the subject of virtue, and seeking the truth of what is the moral way to live. It was Socrates who said:
   
   Whereas, the truth is that God is never in any way unrighteous—he is perfect in righteousness. He of us who is the most righteous is of all things most like him. Herein is seen the cleverness of man, and also his nothingness and want of manhood. For, to know this is true wisdom and virtue, and ignorance of this is manifest folly and vice.
   
   (Theaetetus, 176)
   
   However, I’m willing to look at your evidence for believing he committed such a sin. Please cite your source so I can investigate it myself.
   

   Those companion approaches are perfectly illustrated by the passage about the Ethiopian you have already been led to think about. But you’re not going to arrive at where the Ethiopian arrived–not going to get there–on the internet.

   I’d certainly be willing to continue our private message discussion about Acts, chapter 8, here in the public forum if you believe it will help me see how to see the truth. Please tell me how my virtual conversation with you here is so different from Philip’s face-to-face conversation with the man seeking the truth about the writings of Isiah.
   

   When Naaman was healed by washing seven times in the River Jordan, he learned that he needed to humble himself and follow the pattern he had been told would bring him healing. … Blessings to you, kind friend.

   Blessings to you, too! Naaman did follow the advice of the prophet of God, and was cured of his leprosy, after his friends reasoned with him that (1) the prophet was an authority he could trust to know when God intended to do a miracle, and (2) the worst that could happen by taking a bath in the Jordan river was that he’d still be diseased. Thanks to his friends, he was cured. My hope is that I will be cured by following the good advice of a new friend, such as yourself. What advice do you have for me?

 

[spockrates]

Absolutely, no problem! So let’s start by applying that test to Moses himself, shall we? After all, he was the one who gave us the test; therefore he is the first person to be tested by his own rule! He was a Hebrew prophet—in fact the greatest of them! So if that test would be good enough for anybody, it should be good enough for him. Let’s test him by his own rule! Let us suppose you were a Jew living in the time of Moses, or maybe two or three hundred later. How would you apply that test to determine if he had been a true prophet or not? Which one of his prophecies would you take to apply the test to? I look forward to your reply.

Yes, I quite agree! Let’s see if Moses is able to put his eternal treasure where his mouth is! If he is not able, we’ve found him to be a liar and a cheat. The same goes for Isaiah, for he makes the same claim Moses does–that claim being that God alone can predict the future. I suppose once we are done exposing Moses as a fraud, we can move on to Isaiah, too. But first, Moses. Near the end of his life, he wrote that God gave him this prediction:

14And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thy days approach that thou must die: call Joshua, and present yourselves in the tabernacle of the congregation, that I may give him a charge. And Moses and Joshua went, and presented themselves in the tabernacle of the congregation.

15And the LORD appeared in the tabernacle in a pillar of a cloud: and the pillar of the cloud stood over the door of the tabernacle.

16And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.

17Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?

18And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.

19Now therefore write ye this song for you, and teach it the children of Israel: put it in their mouths, that this song may be a witness for me against the children of Israel.

20For when I shall have brought them into the land which I sware unto their fathers, that floweth with milk and honey; and they shall have eaten and filled themselves, and waxen fat; then will they turn unto other gods, and serve them, and provoke me, and break my covenant.

21And it shall come to pass, when many evils and troubles are befallen them, that this song shall testify against them as a witness; for it shall not be forgotten out of the mouths of their seed: for I know their imagination which they go about, even now, before I have brought them into the land which I sware.

22Moses therefore wrote this song the same day, and taught it the children of Israel.

(Deuteronomy 31)

Please explain how this is not evidence of God predicting the future through Moses.

 

[spockrates]

On the subject of Peter in Matthew 16:18, you might be interested to know that the Eastern Orthodox Church has always interpreted that scripture in the same way as the Mormons do. They believe that the “rock” on which the Church should be built was Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, rather than on himself. Here is a link that provides some information on that. I have also found a very well researched article on the Internet on how the early Church Fathers understood this verse. I have not read it all the way through yet, since it is a rather long article; but it appears to confirm that the early Church Fathers didn’t understand that verse to refer to Peter himself either. You can read it here. However, looking at your question in a broader context, I don’t think that you will find the answer you seek by just looking at isolated verses like this. You are more likely to find what you are looking for by looking at the complete package of God’s revealed word to man, than by just focusing on a few isolated verses. To us of course that includes the modern LDS scriptures.

Yes, I have discussed this with Catholics who admit that there was disagreement among their early Church fathers over the meaning of Christ’s words to Peter. Also, their own Catechism admits the truth that Peter’s confession is a rock on which the Church is built. It also claims that Christ Himself is a rock on which the Church is built. Peter, too, is a rock on which the Catholic Church is built, it adds. So they believe there are three rocks, not one.

I suppose that I won’t know which rock is the real rock until I know which authority is the real authority. Catholics have explained to me why I should trust their Church as the authority to resolve Christ’s apparent ambiguous statement to Peter. Please explain why the modern LDS scriptures are the authority I should trust instead.

 

[spockrates]

Crisis of faith is exactly what I was experiencing.
I pretty much keep people out of the loop entirely in the sense that I will only ask questions of them if I am looking for clarification or explanation. But I dont look to them to convince me of anything. I dont debate. And often times I am skepical of their answers. But I bring that skepticism to God. And then I just leave it there.

I’m not into debate, either, Marie. A person who debates is one who already has a truth to argue. Me, I often don’t know what the truth is, so when I don’t know, all I can do is ask questions. Now, if someone tells me what she believes the truth is and I’m not so sure, rather than be polite and not say I’m skeptical, I’m going to not give the person the wrong impression that I agree, but let her know why I still have doubts. The hope is that she has experienced the same doubts, too, and can share how God used others to alleviate them.

My experience with God has been that I ask Him what the real truth of passages like Matthew 16:18 are, and He pretty much confirms what I’m thinking. It’s as if He smiles and says, “Yes, Jesus was not really clear, there! Why do you think that is?” When I respond that I was hoping He’d tell me, He replies that I should ask others. This is His purpose for me, it seems, and I’ve submitted to that. I’m doing what I believe He wants me to do, which is to ask people like you why you believe. Maybe one of you will give me the wisdom He gave to you, but has withheld from me. But if you do not, I’ll keep on asking as He wants me to do.

I suppose I’m like Socrates, that way. I’m something of a midwife.

And not all of my questions and doubts have been answered. But I do find that as time goes by I have less and less on my list.

For example–Eucharist Adoration of the Blessed Sacrament.

Sounded silly to me for the longest time. Even told God that. I know that the idea of “sitting with the Lord” for an hour comes from His agony in the Garden when the disciples fell asleep and He asked if they could not even stay awake with Him for one hour.
COMPLETELY skeptical. But I thought of that scripture and thought OK…I could spend an hour in front of the monstrance even in my doubts and skepticism.

So in faith (with doubts in hand) I went. (My parish has Eurcharist Adoration on the first Thrus of each month). I did it for a few months.
Eventually my doubts faded and I look forward to it with peace and gratitude.
No one answered anything for me. I just went forward in faith that Yes, I could spend an hour with the Lord.

When it comes to the Real Presence I still have faith and doubts hand in hand. God knows this. But I do feel very close with Him when I am in front of the Blessed Sacrament.

I dont expect perfect knowledge. But I can exercise faith, even while I doubt.
God knows this. He isnt asking me to have perfect knowledge. Just faith.

Yes, there is a Catholic Church in my neighborhood with an Adoration Chapel. I’ve considered visiting it, myself. Are you saying that by praying in the presence of the Eucharist your feelings of doubt subsided, even though your questions that caused the doubt remained unanswered?

 

[Marie5890]

Spockrates,

The the New Year coming up on us now may be a good time to visiting the different denominations that you are discerning. Go to their worship services.

See if the Spirit is leading you in one or another direction.

Relying on one’s own intellect, or that of another human being, is always limited when it comes to matters of the Spirit.

You seem want to discern many of you questions in an intellectual manner, not a spiritual one.

Im sure you would welcomed at the various places of worshipped.

 

[spockrates]

Spockrates,

The the New Year coming up on us now may be a good time to visiting the different denominations that you are discerning. Go to their worship services.

See if the Spirit is leading you in one or another direction.

Relying on one’s own intellect, or that of another human being, is always limited when it comes to matters of the Spirit.

You seem want to discern many of you questions in an intellectual manner, not a spiritual one.

Im sure you would welcomed at the various places of worshipped.

Thanks for the advice, Marie.