ECFs said Peter wasn't the Rock?

[Aris]

prodromos:

Aris, the Catholic position is entirely exclusive. It takes the position that the rock and confession upon which Christ will build His church is exclusively Peter and Peter’s. It takes the position that the bishops of Rome are the exclusive successors to Peter. The Orthodox church holds no such exclusive view.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

You may have to clarify your position. Exclusive in what sense?

Successors to Peter? There are other successors to Peter? In what sense?

As the visible Leader of the Church? So there is more than one visible Leader of the Church?

what do you mean exclusively Peter and Peter’s? That it does not apply to us as well? Where did you get this notion?

That we as believers are not also rocks that the Church is built upon? That this is not held by the Catholic Church? I beg to disagree.

or That Christ is also the rock? That the Catholic Church teaches Peter is the Rock but Christ is not? Where did the Catholic church teach this.

Do you also have a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? Please let me know what part in the Cathechism contradicts your Orthodox position.

What is the teaching of the Orthodox that will make it all-encompassing and that will not exclude all truths?

I should say in fact that it is the Orthodox teaching that excludes the interpretation of Peter as the Rock.

 

[TNT]

ECFs said Peter wasn’t the Rock?

Let’s cut to the Chase. If a non-catholic EVER professed that Peter was the Pierre, then they’d have to become Catholic. And that IS their SOLE motive.
The End.

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

Successors to Peter? There are other successors to Peter? In what sense?

All bishops who confess the faith of Peter are Peter’s successors.

As the visible Leader of the Church? So there is more than one visible Leader of the Church?

"Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church" Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
The bishop is the visible leader of the church where ever that church may be.

what do you mean exclusively Peter and Peter’s? That it does not apply to us as well? Where did you get this notion?

That we as believers are not also rocks that the Church is built upon? That this is not held by the Catholic Church? I beg to disagree.

or That Christ is also the rock? That the Catholic Church teaches Peter is the Rock but Christ is not? Where did the Catholic church teach this.

I didn’t express myself to well. Just ignore that bit and focus on the Catholic churches claim that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter and that only the bishop of Rome, by nature of his sole successorship from Peter, is protected from teaching error.

John.

 

[prodromos]

TNT:

Let’s cut to the Chase. If a non-catholic EVER professed that Peter was the Pierre, then they’d have to become Catholic. And that IS their SOLE motive.

Nonsense. I confess that Peter is the Rock because of his Confession of Christ, the spiritual rock. SInce I do not make any connection between Peter’s confession and the papacy, my conscience does not give me any urges to become Catholic.

John

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Aris:

Again that is not Catholic. From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church you will read that the Catholic Church does not exclude the interpretation of the Rock as the profession of Faith.

Do you have a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? If you can not find the portion explaining the Catholic position, please feel free to PM me and I will send you the numbers.

Aris, I am not excluding anything, nor am I accusing Catholics of doing so. Reread the post.
I am sorry it wasn’t clear to you.

Yes, I have read the Catechism -&- Peter lives on – Vatican I.

 

[Aris]

prodromos:

Nonsense. I confess that Peter is the Rock because of his Confession of Christ, the spiritual rock. SInce I do not make any connection between Peter’s confession and the papacy, my conscience does not give me any urges to become Catholic.

John

He’s got a point there TNT.

They probably accept that Peter is the Rock because he is called Peter but do not see the connection with Papacy.

Hmmm but that is very close to the Catholic position.

As I said, even your statements are not contradicted by the Catholic Church.

“All bishops who confess the faith of Peter are Peter’s successors.”

You might also be meaning the apostle’s successors. Bishops are the Apostle’s successors.

The office of Peter as Leader of the Church has been handed down from one Pope to another. It is something that can be seen in the Patristic writings.

However, that is not the issue. The issue is it valid for non-catholics to say that most ECF held to the belief that Peter was not the rock but his confession.

 

[TheGarg]

prodromos:

But Christ did not say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church” did he. He said “on this rock I will build my Church”. You may interpret Christ’s words as you wish but you must never change them to something He did not say.

Christ is Risen!
John

didn’t he say[aramaic]

" ‘aph ‘ena’ ‘amar-na’ lak da’t-(h)uw ke’pha’

and I say - I to thee that-thou-art Cephas

we'al hade' **ke'pha'** 'ebneyh lei(d)tiy

and upon this rock I will build her namely my church

at what point does he change the context of the word ke’ pha’, as if he was talking about a different rock than the one he just named peter, in the sentence before.

If he was going to build His Church on something other than Cephas, why didn’t He just say that?

I have never found the protestant versions of what Christ said to make much grammatical sense, a play on words at best. Honestly, I also don’t see how one can separate Peter from his profession of faith in Christ anyways. That profession is what made Jesus think him trustworthy to hold the Keys.

I don’t think Jesus gave us an enigma to solve. I see his words as pretty simple. Complicated minds filled with pride and doubt have, over the last few centuries, found ways to twist context and meanings.

 

[prodromos]

TheGarg:

I don’t think Jesus gave us an enigma to solve. I see his words as pretty simple. Complicated minds filled with pride and doubt have, over the last few centuries, found ways to twist context and meanings.

It is ironic that this is almost exactly the view I have, just not from the Papalist viewpoint.

I have no knowledge of Aramaic so I cannot form an argument based on Aramaic grammar, nor can I be certain that what you have presented is an accurate rendition of the words Jesus spoke (though I dare say there aren’t many different ways in which it can be expressed). In Greek, however, the article “this” (“ταύτη”) placed before “rock” puts quite a strain on the interpretation that Peter is the rock since Peter is the one being spoken to. We understand that Peter is the rock in the sense that it is Peter making the confession, because it is only in the context of his confession of Christ that he is called “rock”. Without his confession of Christ he will simply be Simon son of Jonah.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

 

[TheGarg]

prodromos:

It is ironic that this is almost exactly the view I have, just not from the Papalist viewpoint.

I have no knowledge of Aramaic so I cannot form an argument based on Aramaic grammar, nor can I be certain that what you have presented is an accurate rendition of the words Jesus spoke (though I dare say there aren’t many different ways in which it can be expressed). In Greek, however, the article “this” (“ταύτη”) placed before “rock” puts quite a strain on the interpretation that Peter is the rock since Peter is the one being spoken to. We understand that Peter is the rock in the sense that it is Peter making the confession, because it is only in the context of his confession of Christ that he is called “rock”. Without his confession of Christ he will simply be Simon son of Jonah.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

In light of all that was occuring at that moment in time, it[Peter’s confession of Faith] kinda made Peter pretty special than didn’t it.

Peters confession came from peter, why wouldn’t peter be the rock to build his Church on. Men need leaders.

I have suggested before, that without leaders, we have anarchy, which leads to chaos…for example a “million”[arbitrary #, but you get my drift] different interpretations of the Word contained in the bible.

In our limited knowledge as individuals, I am glad to be a part of His Church, which keeps to one interpretation, a far more studied and well thought out interpretation that never changes no matter how inconvienant it might be for an individual] that a single man could come up with.

I will tell you now, to be a member of the Catholic Church is to submit and be humble in the face of my hurt pride. I don’t bend the Word to justify my actions, i bend my actions to Justify the Word.

{just to clarify, Word = Jesus…Word != a book}
“!=” means “does not equal” or “not equal to”] not for your benifit, but for those who are not familiar with operators.

 

[prodromos]

TheGarg,

we have leaders. They are called bishops

John

 

[thessalonian]

prodromos:

It is ironic that this is almost exactly the view I have, just not from the Papalist viewpoint.

I have no knowledge of Aramaic so I cannot form an argument based on Aramaic grammar, nor can I be certain that what you have presented is an accurate rendition of the words Jesus spoke (though I dare say there aren’t many different ways in which it can be expressed). In Greek, however, the article “this” (“ταύτη”) placed before “rock” puts quite a strain on the interpretation that Peter is the rock since Peter is the one being spoken to. We understand that Peter is the rock in the sense that it is Peter making the confession, because it is only in the context of his confession of Christ that he is called “rock”. Without his confession of Christ he will simply be Simon son of Jonah.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

Noone would deny that Peter would be anything without his confession. What’s the point. The fact is that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. His name is mentioned 190 times. John is next at about 30. That is not significant? Peter is always mentioned first in lists of Apostles. I think you will find that in any group the leader will be mentioned the most and first. And most important Peter always responds when the GROUP is asked a question. Matt 16:18, John 6 around v. 72, Acts 2 v. 38, Acts 4 and a few other places I can’t remember offhand. Show me where another Apostle answers for the group. There is much more evidence than this but we will see if you are open to anything.

As for the perpetuation of Peter’s office, I think keys are the key. You see Jesus said to Peter “i give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven”. Now when I bought my house I got a set of keys. Keys indicate succession, access, and authority. Now when I sell my house it is the giving over of the keys to another that passes on that succession, access, and authority. Further if you look at Is 22 v. 22 which Jesus was clearly paralleling, Shebna’s keys were to be taken away and passed to Eliakim. This is a forshadowing of the passing on from Israel to the New Covenant Israel of the authority. It should be noted that Shebna was a steward (spoke for the king if you look in 2 Kings 18) in a long line of stewards. The Old Testament is a forshadowing of the new. Succession of authority is a principal of the Old Testament and is passed in to the new. Look at Matt 23 v.2. “The scribes and the pharaseess sit on MOSES SEAT…”. A seat never mentioned in the Old Testament, yet quite apparently a seat of successoin.

Blessings

 

[ferdie]

TheGarg:

I will tell you now, to be a member of the Catholic Church is to submit and be humble in the face of my hurt pride. I don’t bend the Word to justify my actions, i bend my actions to Justify the Word.

Pride the source of our disunity. I wish all Catholics have the attitude that your have.