Discrepancy in the Cathechism

[Todd_Easton]

There is no contradiction in referring to Peter as the rock in one place and in referring to Peter’s faith as the rock in another place since, while he lived in the world, Peter was the embodiment of his own faith.

 

[Spirithound]

However, the “on this rock I will build my Church” teaching, is far more significant and important, and I still don;t think Jesus assigned a dual meaning to it. Jesus is talking about the rock on which he will build his church. I question the strength of anything that is built on multiple rocks, rather than a single one.

Is Peter separate from his own faith? No, his faith is a gift from the Father, assented to by Peter’s will. Peter cannot be The Rock unless he has faith, but at the same time, an intellectual faith isn’t going to take him very far. It is more broadly the whole man who is The Rock.

Protestants try to separate Peter from his own faith, an absurdity, and thus only get half the picture.

 

[sinner06]

Is Peter separate from his own faith? No, his faith is a gift from the Father, assented to by Peter’s will. Peter cannot be The Rock unless he has faith, but at the same time, an intellectual faith isn’t going to take him very far. It is more broadly the whole man who is The Rock.

Protestants try to separate Peter from his own faith, an absurdity, and thus only get half the picture.

This is not making any sense to me. When Jesus talks about faith, he is actually talking about Peter? It is built on Peter’s faith? Please help me understand.

 

[Contarini]

Fair enough. But I still don’t think Christ was talking about 2 different rocks, it just doesn’t make sense.

It’s not too different rocks. Peter is the rock because of his faith and confession. Peter, his faith, and his confession, are not three different things. Nor, for that matter, is Christ a fourth thing, since Peter’s faith is in Christ, his confession is of Christ, and Peter is a disciple of Christ who will become a member of Christ’s Body.

Edwin

 

[Spirithound]

This is not making any sense to me. When Jesus talks about faith, he is actually talking about Peter? It is built on Peter’s faith? Please help me understand.

I mean that Peter is the Rock, and so his faith is also rock.

 

[sinner06]

This argument, that Peter is his faith, is his confession… it just doesn’t make sense. It seems, and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but it seems, if this is Catholic teaching, that the Catholic Church is trying to justify the Papacy with pretty wild arguments. If it is built on Peter’s faith and his confession, is it built, then, on anyone who has faith and makes the same confession? Saying that Peter is is faith, and we all follow the same faith, aren’t we all the same then? If Peter is his confession, and we all confess the same truth, aren’t we the same? This seems, no offense, like a wild attempt to justify the Papacy. Please explain???

 

[thistle]

Martin Luther, even after he left the Church still believed Peter was the Rock:

“Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.” (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)

 

[sinner06]

Martin Luther, even after he left the Church still believed Peter was the Rock:

“Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, 'I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth. Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office. They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.” (Martin Luther 1530 - after he left the Church)

Just because Martin Luther believed something, doesn’t mean I do. Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. Frankly, I don’t believe that the church was built on Peter. No argument I have heard has convinced me otherwise, though I am still open to anything anyone has to say.

 

[quiet52]

This argument, that Peter is his faith, is his confession… it just doesn’t make sense. It seems, and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but it seems, if this is Catholic teaching, that the Catholic Church is trying to justify the Papacy with pretty wild arguments. If it is built on Peter’s faith and his confession, is it built, then, on anyone who has faith and makes the same confession? Saying that Peter is is faith, and we all follow the same faith, aren’t we all the same then? If Peter is his confession, and we all confess the same truth, aren’t we the same? This seems, no offense, like a wild attempt to justify the Papacy. Please explain???

Jesus established the Papacy. He showed that He wanted His Church organized. Do you not accept that “Peter” or “Petros” means “rock”? Christ gave him that new name for a reason. It was obvious that Peter was Christ’s leader of Apostles, our first Pope. The Church leads all to heaven, even those not in full communion with the Church. Christ gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom by giving him the authority to lead the Church. See Matthew 16:19. The Church is built on Peter the Rock because of his faith and because of the authority given to him by Christ (no other Apostle were given the keys to the Kingdom by Christ). The following links will explain this quite well.

christendom-awake.org/pages/dlongene/youpeter.html

scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

stlouisreview.com/abpcolumn.php?abpid=6586

boston-catholic-journal.com/a-primer-to-catholic-symbolism.htm#The_Keys_of_the_Kingdom_

scborromeo.org/glad/c5.htm

 

[Spirithound]

This argument, that Peter is his faith, is his confession… it just doesn’t make sense. It seems, and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but it seems, if this is Catholic teaching, that the Catholic Church is trying to justify the Papacy with pretty wild arguments. If it is built on Peter’s faith and his confession, is it built, then, on anyone who has faith and makes the same confession? Saying that Peter is is faith, and we all follow the same faith, aren’t we all the same then? If Peter is his confession, and we all confess the same truth, aren’t we the same? This seems, no offense, like a wild attempt to justify the Papacy. Please explain???

Again you have it backwards: Peter is not his faith; Peter’s faith is an integral part of him. Jesus built His Church on a particular man, Peter, but because Peter had faith and made a confession/proclamation of faith, and as I said above, Peter’s faith is an integral part of him, then the Church is consequently built on Peter’s faith.

Try to separate Peter from his faith. It simply can’t happen. Try to build a Church on a man, but not also on that man’s faith. It can’t happen.

No offense taken

 

[thistle]

Just because Martin Luther believed something, doesn’t mean I do. Martin Luther was wrong about a lot of things. Frankly, I don’t believe that the church was built on Peter. No argument I have heard has convinced me otherwise, though I am still open to anything anyone has to say.

That’s because you are hearing but not listening to what everyone has said.
As a Catholic you have obviously not had a good education in your faith which is sad.

 

[Contarini]

This argument, that Peter is his faith, is his confession… it just doesn’t make sense. It seems, and I mean absolutely no offense when I say this, but it seems, if this is Catholic teaching, that the Catholic Church is trying to justify the Papacy with pretty wild arguments. If it is built on Peter’s faith and his confession, is it built, then, on anyone who has faith and makes the same confession?

Perhaps. But perhaps the fact that Peter was the first really is significant. Catholics argue that by founding the Church on Peter, the one who first made the confession, Christ was guaranteeing that there would be a line of bishops in succession from Peter who would not err in matters of formal doctrinal definition, and thus could serve as anchors for the Church against which the gates of hell would not prevail.

I agree that this is a fairly elaborate extrapolation from the Scriptural passage. But that’s how theological development works. Catholics on this forum often obscure this by engaging in prooftexting of the kind fundamentalist Protestants expect.

Edwin

 

[Spirithound]

If it is built on Peter’s faith and his confession, is it built, then, on anyone who has faith and makes the same confession? Saying that Peter is is faith, and we all follow the same faith, aren’t we all the same then? If Peter is his confession, and we all confess the same truth, aren’t we the same?

This is a good point, which I neglected last night. The Church is, in fact built using our faith and confessions, but Peter is the one that we are built upon.