Corner stone vs. Rock of Peter?

[UnityofTrinity]

When I engage into debates with Fundamentalists, one of the Biblical passages they most often use is the passage where Christ is referred as the cornerstone by no other than Peter itself. How would you counter this argument?

 

[bogeydogg]

Hi protestant here…

Christ is the cornerstone the Apostles and Prophets are the foundation the Saints are the building and we all are the Bride. People who make a big ruckus about Christ being the cornerstone have just managed to confess that they are Christian. No one who is Christian thinks Christ to be anything other than the cornerstone. However to argue that the Apostles are irrelevant when Christ tells that we are to accept them and their teaching as we would accept Him and to deny them is to deny God who sent Christ raises a serious problem with the Doctrine of sola scriptura. The very fact that the protestants claim sola scriptura and then try to argue that scripture doesn’t mean what it means is strange.

The same thing goes for the confession of Peter. To argue the Rock is Peter’s confession and not the man who made the confession is to make a distinction without a difference.

God Bless

 

[Loboto-Me]

I would agree with this statement completely. Jesus is the cornerstone of our faith. The corner stone is what holds a building together… the most important stone there is

Cornerstone

1. a stone uniting two masonry walls at an intersection. 2. a stone
   representing the nominal starting place in the construction of a
   monumental building, usually carved with the date and laid with
   appropriate ceremonies. 3. something that is essential, indispensable,
   or basic 4. the chief foundation on which something is constructed or
   developed

This doesn’t negate Peter being the rock on which the Church is to be built. A rock and a cornerstone are two complete different things.

The rock is a foundation, the strength, but the cornerstone is the main representation of that strength… what everyone sees and what everyone focuses on. We as a rule don’t focus on what a building is built upon, even though it’s extremely important to have firm ground, but we sure do see the cornerstone.

Jesus is the cornerstone, He is the one whom we celebrate, whom we focus on, who is the whole strength of the Church.

 

[TimothyH]

This doesn’t negate Peter being the rock on which the Church is to be built. A rock and a cornerstone are two complete different things.

The rock is a foundation, the strength, but the cornerstone is the main representation of that strength… what everyone sees and what everyone focuses on. We as a rule don’t focus on what a building is built upon, even though it’s extremely important to have firm ground, but we sure do see the cornerstone.

“The rock” is a reference to the foundation stone of the Jerusalem temple.

*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)*Jewish tradition held that the foundation stone upon which the temple in Jerusalem was built capped off a long shaft which led down to the netherworld, “The pit” or the dark abode of the dead sheol. The foundation stone and the temple which was built upon it were seen as half way between Heaven and Hell and prevented the chaos and darkness of the Netherworld from entering the living human world. Jesus is, in effect, tearing down the temple and uncapping the foundation stone and is making Peter that foundation stone, the foundation of the Church which would prevent the error and chaos in Sheol from entering the world.

***Then I saw an angel come down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the abyss and a heavy chain. He seized the dragon, the ancient serpent, which is the Devil or Satan, and tied it up for a thousand years and threw it into the abyss, which he locked over it and sealed, so that it could no longer lead the nations astray **until the thousand years are completed. (Revelation 20:1-3)*You want to freak out your Fundamentalist friends? Don’t even entertain the rock vs corner stone argument. Instead just deflect the conversation and suggest that not only is the rock of Peter the new foundation stone which caps off the entrance to Sheol so that the chaos and error of Satan cannot enter the world, but that the sacraments are the chain spoken about in Revelation 20 which bind’s Satan and gives him no control over us. Suggest that through the foundation of the Church and its sacraments - especially the Eucharist, confession and baptism - Satan has been chained and thrown into the abyss for 1000 years AKA a very long time.

Suggest therefor that the millenial reign of Christ is now and see what they say. I’d love to be a fly on the wall.

-Tim-

 

[Todd_Easton]

I’d say, it is important in each case to look at the context in which a metaphor is being used. The same metaphor can be used to mean different things depending on the context.

For instance, in Matthew 16:18-19, with his association with keys and binding and loosing, Peter seems to be called the rock upon which Christ’s Church will be built in somewhat the same sense that Eliakim, who was associated with a key and opening and shutting, is likened to a peg in a sure place upon which will hang the whole weight of his father’s house in Isaiah 22:15-25. In Isaiah 22, Eliakim was being placed in the office of chief steward over the royal household of King Hezekiah. Thus, in Matthew 16, the context suggests that Peter was going to be placed in the office of chief steward over Christ’s Church, principally to shepherd the Church in Christ’s absence, as is also suggested by the context in Luke 12:41-46 and John 21:15-17.

 

[Curious1324]

When I engage into debates with Fundamentalists, one of the Biblical passages they most often use is the passage where Christ is referred as the cornerstone by no other than Peter itself. How would you counter this argument?

No need to counter it, Christ is the cornerstone.

 

[UnityofTrinity]

It’s not about countering the passage itself, for the passage is part of Scripture. My problem is that Protestants, esp. anti-Catholic Fundamentalists often quote this passage as a justification for their crusade against the papacy. How should I respond?

 

[kentuckyliz]

Jesus also told the parable of the wise man who built his house on a rock which withstood the storms.

In this parable, Jesus is the wise man. He knows very well what rock means–when he tells the parable, when he surnames Simon ‘Cephas’ when he called him to follow, and when he reaffirmed his Rockness right before the Passion.

Only god is named Rock in the OT; Jesus names Peter Rock–as a name and mission. When God changes your name, He means what he says, and what He says is created. (The latter being a basic lesson from Genesis.)

The wise man built his house on a rock, and it has withstood the storms.

Also pose this question–part of the homily yesterday.

How many churches that Paul established still exist today? Zero.
How many of the churches that Peter established exist today? All of them.

 

[TimothyH]

It’s not about countering the passage itself, for the passage is part of Scripture. My problem is that Protestants, esp. anti-Catholic Fundamentalists often quote this passage as a justification for their crusade against the papacy. How should I respond?

If you are not comfortable debating some issue that a non-Catholic brings up then just dont. It sounds trite but no one short of a professional theologian can know everything. If you don’t know how to respond to something then just say something like, “You know, I’ve never really looked into that particular doctrine in depth, but I can tell you that every time I do look into a particular doctrine I find out how wonderfully scriptural it is and so I have no reason to doubt the validity of this Church teaching. But let me ask you, what do you think about…” and then turn the conversation to a subject you are comfortable with.

The anti-Catholic will likely know all of the non-Catholic arguments while you, being unfamiliar with the topic may be able to respond adequately once or twice. So back down, say you don’t know and turn the conversation to something you know.

What the fundamentalist is trying to do is to instill doubt in you. They will cite a passage that seems to make sense so that you doubt a matter of faith. They are using the term cornerstone to try and make you think that Peter is not the foundatation - the Rock. The fact is that Jesus called Peter the Rock and Peter called Jesus the cornerstone. You already know that.

You can do the same to them, instilling doubt about what they think they know about Catholicism by speaking about one small doctrine of the Catholic faith, showing how scriptural it is, how beautiful it is and how full of truth it is. You want to instill in them the idea that there is some truth in the Catholic faith and that is often enough to get them thinking.

I’ll post my apologetic arguments regarding the papacy in the next post as it is a bit lengthy

-Tim-

 

[TimothyH]

Regarding arguments about the papacy, I’ll quote myself from a previous post here…

“The rock” is a reference to the foundation stone of the Jerusalem temple.

*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18)*Jewish tradition held that the foundation stone upon which the temple in Jerusalem was built capped off a long shaft which led down to the netherworld, “the pit” or the dark abode of the dead sheol. The the “the rock” upon which the temple was built was a cap or lid which prevented the chaos and darkness of the Netherworld from entering the living human world.

The foundation stone and the temple which was built upon it was half way between the abode of the dead (sheol) and Heaven. The rock and its temple was therefor the center of the universe to the Jews. By calling Peter “the Rock”, Jesus is in effect, tearing down the temple and uncapping the foundation stone and is transferring that role to Peter. Peter becomes the foundation stone - the rock - which caps off the Netherworld. The new temple or Church is built upon that new foundation stone and the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

You should also be very familiar witht he book of Isaiah - no small undertaking - but especially the following part of chapter 22.

I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; (Isaiah 22:19-23) Remember that this is prophecy of future events.

When Isaiah references the “Keys to the Hous of David”, he is speaking about a very specific political event that those who lived under monarchies were very familiar with. We don’t really understand what it is like to live under a king so we have no context but giving somone the “Keys to the house” of the king meant an appointment to the position of prime minister. The prime minister was repsonsible for carrying out the kings edicts and decrees on a day to day basis. They keys were often literally the keys to the kings treasury so that the prime minister could raise armies, pay workers to build roads, maintain infrastructure like aqueducts and generally run the kingdom.

*So Pharaoh said to Joseph: “Since God has made all this known to you, no one can be as wise and discerning as you are. You shall be in charge of my palace, and all my people shall dart at your command. Only in respect to the throne shall I outrank you. Herewith,” Pharaoh told Joseph, “I place you in charge of the whole land of Egypt.” With that, Pharaoh took off his signet ring and put it on Joseph’s finger. He had him dressed in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain about his neck. He then had him ride in the chariot of his vizier, and they shouted “Abrek!” before him. Thus was Joseph installed over the whole land of Egypt. “I, Pharaoh, proclaim,” he told Joseph, “that without your approval no one shall move hand or foot in all the land of Egypt.” (Genesis 41:39-44)*We see the practice - appointing a prime minister or “Lord of the house” of the king - as early as the book of Genesis.

*And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:18-20)*Jesus’ words to Peter about being given the “Keys to the kingdom” would have been immediately recognizable by the ancient Jews who heard it as an appointment to the office of prime minister. The Roman authorities, who demanded loyalty to the Roman god-man emperor, would not have taken kindly to this and would have seen it as an establishment of a rival government which was a act of treason. The Roman authorities would have likely rounded them everyone involved and executed them. Peter was prideful, a loudmouth, and a braggart. He would have bragged about being Jesus’ head-honcho and so that is why Jesus strictly forbade them to tell anyone about it.

Show the anti-Catholic that you know a little bit about history, qouote the Old Testament and show the logic of your argument and then you are done. I guarantee that they will not accept your apologetic arguments and will still deny the validity of the papacy but that’s not the point. You have successfully put forth the Catholic teaching on one Catholic doctrine in a logical, scriptural way and that just might be the thing that gets the anti-Catholic thinking that these crazy Catholics might not be as crazy as he was told. That is powerful and God can use that in a mighty way.

That’s really the point.

-Tim-

 

[PJM]

=UnityofTrinity;7552534]When I engage into debates with Fundamentalists, one of the Biblical passages they most often use is the passage where Christ is referred as the cornerstone by no other than Peter itself. How would you counter this argument?

Different AND SEPERATE roles: BOTH Critically Important.

Corner Stone = King = Jesus

**Foundation: =Prime Minister **[person placed in charge with unlimited authority fo day to day Governance; answerable ONLY to THEE KING. =Peter and successors. [Matt. 16:15-19 and Matt. 18:18 to the Apostles AND BY NECESSITY; there to heirs. [Mat.28:19-20] could not be fulfilled were this not true.

**Eph. 2:19-20 **“So then you are no longer strangers and sojourners, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, singular] built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole structure is joined together and grows into a holy temple in the Lord; [singular] in whom you also are built into it for a dwelling place of God in the Spirit. “

**Eph. 4: 4 -8 **“There is one body Only One Church] and one Spirit, Only One set of beliefs] just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, Only One God] ONLY one faith, Only One set of doctrine and dogma] one baptism, By water in the Trinity] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all. But grace was given to each of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift. "

God Bless, Pat

 

[Curious1324]

It’s not about countering the passage itself, for the passage is part of Scripture. My problem is that Protestants, esp. anti-Catholic Fundamentalists often quote this passage as a justification for their crusade against the papacy. How should I respond?

Christ is the cornerstone. Christ gave the Apostles specific authorities, powers, and commissions, and Peter was the prominent one of the 12.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I would agree with this statement completely. Jesus is the cornerstone of our faith. The corner stone is what holds a building together… the most important stone there is

Cornerstone

1. a stone uniting two masonry walls at an intersection. 2. a stone
   representing the nominal starting place in the construction of a
   monumental building, usually carved with the date and laid with
   appropriate ceremonies. 3. something that is essential, indispensable,
   or basic 4. the chief foundation on which something is constructed or
   developed

This doesn’t negate Peter being the rock on which the Church is to be built. A rock and a cornerstone are two complete different things.

The rock is a foundation, the strength, but the cornerstone is the main representation of that strength… what everyone sees and what everyone focuses on. We as a rule don’t focus on what a building is built upon, even though it’s extremely important to have firm ground, but we sure do see the cornerstone.

Jesus is the cornerstone, He is the one whom we celebrate, whom we focus on, who is the whole strength of the Church.

You’re right. Jesus as the corner stone is the building block of the Church. Peter as the rock is the foundation where the Church is placed upon, a rock. Remember the house built on sand? That is why Peter is the rock, because the Church that Jesus built up and Him being the cornerstone, needs solid ground to be built upon. And that is Peter.