How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?

[NonCatholic]

Hi, NonCatholic,

You know…you have a point there … that was a rather exaggerated setting for a question.

So, allow another attempt: Under what, if any conditions, can a person with free will claim at one point in his life to be ‘saved’ and then later in his life go about objectively breaking the 10 Commandments?

There are seveal referces from St. Paul that were given identifying that it is not over, until it is over and we stand before the Judgment Seat of God. But, the one I like best is Christ’s parable of the 10 Virgins (Matt 25:1-13)

The way I read this, unless you persevere until the end, you will not be saved. Please note, the story does not end with something like*…“Afterwards the other virgins came and said, ‘Lord, Lord, open the door for us!’ But he said in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, you were pretty good girls after all, come on in!.’ Therefore, it does not make a difference if you stay awake or not, for while you know neither the day nor the hour, it does not make any difference because you have been saved!” *

So, to paraphrase as I piggy-back on Benedictus2’s question: were these five foolish virgins in the OSAS cagegory? And, if not, why not? Hopefull, this is simple and straight forward
God bless

First, You missed the entire point of the parable, let me try explain. And so the purpose of this parable is very simple. It is to call for inward preparedness (Virgins with oil) for the return of Christ, rather than simply an outward show (w/o oil). This particular theme is found all the way through the New Testament. Over and over and over again God expresses His concern for those people who outwardly make a profession of Christ, but inwardly do not know Him who are so ill prepared for the inevitable encounter which they shall some day have either at the return of Christ, or in death.
I think it adds greatly to the power of this parable that the foolish virgins are not reprobates. If we were using the picture that Jesus gave in Matthew 13 about the soils, we would say they have no deepness of earth. Here they had no oil, they had no real saving faith, they had no real saving grace. Half of them were without it, half with it.

So the bridesmaids are divided. That’s how it is in the church, that’s how it will be with the people of God until Jesus comes. It will always be this way, even during the time of the Great Tribulation, there will be those attaching themselves to the church who are professing believers but who are not real. Matthew 7 talks much about the “Few” and the “Many”, all religious, but some are possessors and some professors.

The tragedy of unpreparedness. It comes at the Second Coming of Christ and it comes at death as well. Death is no different than the Second Coming of Christ in the sense that when you die, you come before the judgment of God. Hebrews 9:27 says it. “It is appointed unto men once to die and after this, the judgment.”

The principle…be ready or be left to judgment. Verse 11, “Later the other virgins came saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open up for us.’” “Lord, Lord” sounds familiar, doesn’t it? Sounds like Matthew 7:21, “And many will say to Me in that day…what?..Lord, Lord. And I will say, ‘Depart from Me, I never knew you.’”

Second, all of continue to break God’s law, that’s where grace, repentance and forgiveness comes into play; however anyone who uses God’s Grace as an excuse to sin is probably a phony…Paul spoke of this in Romans. Also, the “pattern” of your life should be to sin less and less and less as you come to maturation in Christ and appreciate the sacrifice and love God has for you. I think children are a good example of this as they mature, then become more respectful and obedient. This is why it is so important to learn what God has taught us and to live it out in obedience and reverence for Jesus.

God bless!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, NonCatholic,

Let me see if I have this correct: Benedictus2’s question was not answered because you did not like the analogy and my question was not answered because I did not understand the parable of the ten virgins. Now, how about taking a second chance at responding to my question:

So, to paraphrase as I piggy-back on Benedictus2’s question: were these five foolish virgins in the OSAS cagegory? And, if not, why not? Hopefull, this is simple and straight forward

God bless

 

[NonCatholic]

Hi, NonCatholic,

Let me see if I have this correct: Benedictus2’s question was not answered because you did not like the analogy and my question was not answered because I did not understand the parable of the ten virgins. Now, how about taking a second chance at responding to my question:

So, to paraphrase as I piggy-back on Benedictus2’s question: were these five foolish virgins in the OSAS cagegory? And, if not, why not? Hopefull, this is simple and straight forward

God bless

It is answered, but you must actually read the reply to get the answer. The Virgins without the oil are unregenerate; therefore the OSAS has no bearing.

 

[benedictus2]

You don’t get it. Someone said earlier they would renounce their Catholicism if the church teaches that you cannot know you are saved.

Your example is so ridiculous that I will not comment further on it. You make things way to complicated, not the way God intended-another Gospel?

No I don’t make things too complicated. And the analogy is not ridiculous.

Your failure to answer it means you do not have an answer.

The analogy is not far off wrong. Born again Christians have died after commiting adultery, fornication, theft,etc. Are they still saved?

Your response indicates you are afraid to answer because in the way YOU understand the Bible there is no answer.

**If you are really sure of what the Bible says you will be able to answer that question. **

 

[JRKH]

Hi, NonCatholic,

Let me see if I have this correct: Benedictus2’s question was not answered because you did not like the analogy and my question was not answered because I did not understand the parable of the ten virgins. Now, how about taking a second chance at responding to my question:

So, to paraphrase as I piggy-back on Benedictus2’s question: were these five foolish virgins in the OSAS cagegory? And, if not, why not? Hopefull, this is simple and straight forward

God bless

It seems to be a trend I’m afraid.
I asked a question in post #666 and again in #678 which has also been roundly ignored.
Wonder Why?

Peace
James

 

[guanophore]

if you are Catholic, because Catholic doctrines teach that if you say you are saved, then you are anathema…kind of a dilemma?

No, NC you have misunderstood the Catholic doctrine. The NT was written by Catholics, and everything it it is Catholic. Therefore, when Scripture says we are “saved” this is Catholic.
Catholics believe we are saved when we are baptized into Christ.

 

[guanophore]

First, God’s “elect” is the true church, both in Heaven and presently on earth. It is invisible only in the sense that, as I stated before, in any given Congregation, there are those that are saved and those that aren’t, tares among the wheat. In a visible sense, those that are wheat can be seen and heard.

Second, below are excerpts from the Council of Trent concerning “Justification”, which is the equivalent to “salvation”.

Herein lies the foundation of your misunderstanding, NC. For Catholics, justification is not equivalent to salvation. Justification is being put into right relationship with God. After this, we are sanctified, which means we are made into the image of Jesus, then when we have finished the race, we are glorified, taken into HIs presence eternally so that we can behold His glory. All of these are part of “salvation” from a Catholic perspective.

DECLARATIONS OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT

Source:wayoflife.org/fbns/trent.htm

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the justice received is not preserved and also not increased before God through good works, but that those works are merely the fruits and signs of justification obtained, but not the cause of its increase, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 24).

Sanctification is the ongoing process of bring a Christian to the likeness of Christ as evident through good works, to which God saved un unto good works.

What this is saying is that justification is part of sanctification.

No, NC, you are mistaken. But, I am glad you are reading the documents!

Look back at the first sentence. The justice is “recieved”. Catholic doctrine is that there is nothing we can do to merit, earn, or otherwise acquire saving grace. It is given to us as the free gift of God, not of our own works, lest we can boast.

The problem, as I see it, is the Bible teaches

Here is another source of you fundamental misunderstandings. The Bible does not “teach”. People teach. Jesus gave teachers to the church so that people would not have to rely on their own lack of information to figure out the truth.

that Justification occurs at the moment of Salvation, "justified/saved before the Lord for the forgiveness of sins because of the Lord's work on the cross".

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. This is apostolic. However, we also understand from the Apostles that “salvation” includes justificaton, sanctification, and glorification. Therefore, it is more proper to say that we have not yet attained our salvation, though we are not far from it. We have been justified by His blood.

SIXTH SESSION, CANONS CONCERNING JUSTIFICATION: “If anyone says that the Catholic doctrine of justification as set forth by the holy council in the present decree, derogates in some respect from the glory of God or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ, and does not rather illustrate the truth of our faith and no less the glory of God and of Christ Jesus, LET HIM BE ANATHEMA” (Canons Concerning Justification, Canon 33).

Off course it takes away from the Glory of God in salvation. It does illustrate the truth of “our” faith.

I think you have misunderstood, NC. It is God who justifies, and God who sanctifies, and God who glorifies. We cannot do any of these things for ourselves.

What does the Bible say? Romans 8:29-30 tells us the sanctification process…the justification to the glorification…point A (justification) through to point B (glorification), in between A and B is the process, which is sanctification.

Yes. This is Catholic. the only difference is that protestants confuse justification with salvation, whereas, the Apostles taught that all of these are part of salvation.

 

[guanophore]

Source:[ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.htm](http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/PASTPRES.htm)

What does he mean? And what he is saying is this, the salvation that is in you needs to be brought out all the way to its fulfillment, to its fullness. It really is a command for sustained effort and diligence in working out what has already been planted within. Day-to-day holy living, that’s the idea

Yes. This is Catholic.

 

[guanophore]

**Short answer - because there is no necessary logical link between Peter’s being a rock, & the claims of the CC. **​

---

**It takes more than one thread to make a tapestry. **

---

I think you are right. Peter is the most illogical choice for building a Church. This means that the link is faith,a nd the providence of God, and not logic. The righteousness of God is foolishness to men. But, God indeed did build One Church, upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Peter being the keeper and feeder of His flock.

 

[NonCatholic]

Herein lies the foundation of your misunderstanding, NC. For Catholics, justification is not equivalent to salvation. Justification is being put into right relationship with God. After this, we are sanctified, which means we are made into the image of Jesus, then when we have finished the race, we are glorified, taken into HIs presence eternally so that we can behold His glory. All of these are part of “salvation” from a Catholic perspective.

No, NC, you are mistaken. But, I am glad you are reading the documents!

Look back at the first sentence. The justice is “recieved”. Catholic doctrine is that there is nothing we can do to merit, earn, or otherwise acquire saving grace. It is given to us as the free gift of God, not of our own works, lest we can boast.

Here is another source of you fundamental misunderstandings. The Bible does not “teach”. People teach. Jesus gave teachers to the church so that people would not have to rely on their own lack of information to figure out the truth.

This is what the Catholic Church teaches. This is apostolic. However, we also understand from the Apostles that “salvation” includes justificaton, sanctification, and glorification. Therefore, it is more proper to say that we have not yet attained our salvation, though we are not far from it. We have been justified by His blood.

I think you have misunderstood, NC. It is God who justifies, and God who sanctifies, and God who glorifies. We cannot do any of these things for ourselves.

Yes. This is Catholic. the only difference is that protestants confuse justification with salvation, whereas, the Apostles taught that all of these are part of salvation.

If you are justified before God, you are saved…period! Sanctification is the process that conforms you to the image of Jesus for your future glorification. The thief on the cross is a perfect example, he was justified and brought immediately to glorification, no time for sanctification. The poor tax collector that would not look to heaven…next to the self righteous Pharisee…what did Jesus say about the tax collector versus the Pharisee…he went home?..Justified or saved.

 

[guanophore]

We should start a new thread on “What is unity in the church”;

No, you are right on topic! It is unity with Peter the rock that defines the Church that Jesus established.

there are so many tares out there because church disipline as the Bible defines it is almost non existent. When is the last time anyone saw someone’s sin brought before a congregation…I have never seen it yet Jesus laid out the blue print for it.

I think you have a very limited experience, but I do agree with you, rarely are the instructions of Jesus followed. I have had some evangelicals tell me that most of what Jesus had to say applied to the Jews,a nd not to Christians “this side of the cross”.

As a result, we have all kinds in the church. I always get back to what is a Christian? Jesus emphasized and contrasted the “few” versus the “many” (Matt 7)…he is referring to religious people, not secular. What is scary about that is in 7:14, the last sentence “few there be that FIND it”

The best place to find it, though, is where the Apostolic Succession has been preserved.

 

[NonCatholic]

Yes. This is Catholic.

No one can work out their own salvation; it is the work of God within them. It is hard to explain and I know what Paul said, but that passage is referring to the Biblical view of sanctification, which is not the Catholic view…I mean no offense so forgive if I have. Our abilities to please God are absolute zero; it is only the regeneration and walking in Spirit and Truth, which is the work of God in us…this is the only thing that allows us to persevere to the end.
Philippians 1:6 “{For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
The day of Jesus Christ will be either the Second Coming or death.

 

[guanophore]

If you are justified before God, you are saved…period!

This is true. However, one can lose their right standing with God.
Catholics believe we become justified before God in baptism. If we were to die immediately (before committing mortal sin) then we would go to heaven.

However, the blood of Jesus did not change the nature of sin. Sin separates people from God. It always has, it always will.

The Reformers proposed a concept of salvation that is not consistent with the Apostolic teaching that separates justification from sanctification and Glorificaton.

Sanctification is the process that conforms you to the image of Jesus for your future glorification.

At least we can agree on this point!

The thief on the cross is a perfect example, he was justified and brought immediately to glorification, no time for sanctification.

No, in fact, he is an example of the opposite! Well, not “opposite” but clear evidence that though we have been promised salvation, we have to work it out. Sometimes we have to suffer the consequences of our sins. The thief rightly testified “we are suffering the due penalty for our sins”. You notice that, though Jesus promised HIm paradise, he did NOT take him immediately. He could have gone with the Lord when “it is finished”. But, on the contrary, Jesus deliberately left him there to hang on the cross the rest of the day and suffer agony. His legs were even broken to add insult to injury.

The poor tax collector that would not look to heaven..next to the self righteous Pharisee..what did Jesus say about the tax collector versus the Pharisee..he went home?....Justified or saved.

Yes, and the Apostles taught that it is the doers of the law that will be justified. There is no point at which we can stop following Him and expect to attain our hope.

 

[guanophore]

No one can work out their own salvation; it is the work of God within them.

Of course it is God who is at work in us to will and to do His good pleasure. however, the Apostle gives this directive in the imperative mode. “Do this”. Therefore it seems that there is something that he expects the readers to do in order to participate with God’s salvation at work in them.

It is hard to explain and I know what Paul said, but that passage is referring to the Biblical view of sanctification, which is not the Catholic view…I mean no offense so forgive if I have.

I understand. It is nearly impossible for those who have been separated from the Apostolic Tradition to understand what is written from the point of view of the Apostles. Each man reads it and tries to understand it as best he can from his own point of view. Often this is described as the “biblical” point of view, but the Bible really has no “point of view” because the Holy Writings, valuable as they are, don’t “perceive”. This is a quality belonging only to persons.

Our abilities to please God are absolute zero; it is only the regeneration and walking in Spirit and Truth, which is the work of God in us…this is the only thing that allows us to persevere to the end.

It is very Catholic of you to say this!

Philippians 1:6 “{For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”

 

[joe370]

Sadly, non-Catholics don’t believe Peter is the rock, ergo they nix Catholicism. However this is not a valid reason to discard catholicism. Jesus built One Church on the Apostles and Prophets with God as the Divine cornerstone keeping His Church, His Mystical Body, the House of the Living God, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth united as one.

Whether you believe It was built on Peter, or all of the Apostles, or on Jesus, He still built It, and It is still in the world today, *“And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.”
*

Paul said to the members of Jesus’ Apostolic Church, "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God;And are* built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;** In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit."
*
To Divide the building fitly framed together, is to remove the cornerstone, (Jesus)-- the very stone keeping the building from falling apart! If you find the One Church in the world today, promised by Jesus to be with that One Church forever, the One Church that did not remove Jesus, the cornerstone, (did not divide Jesus’ One Church, His Body, to which He is the Savior) – then you will find Jesus’ established Apostolic Church circa 33 AD. Only One Church in the world today has stayed one, in harmony, avoiding division and dissension, and only one church in the world today can trace its pedigree all the way back to the Apostles; any guesses on which church that is? As a former Lutheran, I could not debunk this simple logic!

*And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. *

Several Catholics have asked non-Catholics, how do you tell it to the church if that church possesses no authority? In the Protestant world, sola scriptura is their sole authority. Even if I neglect to hear the Lutheran church, and the Lutheran church lets me be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican --shunned, I can simply leave the Lutheran church and tell t to another church, and keep telling it to another man-made church until that church finally agrees with me. This process totally invalidates Jesus commandment that His church is to be the final arbiter on all matters regarding faith and morals!

Can you imagine if the bible said, And if he shall neglect to hear them, refer to the authority of the bible: but if he neglect to refer to the authority of the bible, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever the bible, via private interpretation, binds on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever the bible, via private interpretation looses on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Christianity would have disintegrated long ago!

 

[Randy_Carson]

No one can work out their own salvation; it is the work of God within them. It is hard to explain and I know what Paul said, but that passage is referring to the Biblical view of sanctification, which is not the Catholic view

Amazing, isn’t it?

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “Work out your salvation with fear and trembling.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “So you see that a man is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “This is my body…this is my blood.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build what I must call my Church.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “If you forgive anyone’s sins, they are forgive; if you retain anyone’s sins, they are retained.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

The Bible and the Catholic Church say: “Baptism now saves you.”
The NonCatholic says: “That’s not really what it means.”

etc, etc, etc

Sheesh.

 

[JohnVIII]

… at some point a papacy arose in a manner that has survived some several centuries. I’m curious as to when the authority of the Chair of Peter was first challenged? Was it by Martin Luther? The Greek Orthodox? Others?

I think that the authority of the Pope developed over time and came near to being proclaimed officially at the Council of Chalcedon. But according to Pope Gregory the Great, " … this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of GOD I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title …". So it appears to me that it was Pope Leo the Great (who presided at the Council of Chalcedon) that perhaps was the first to challenge this growing authority of the pope. According to the writings of Pope Gregory the Great, his reasoning was that if the Pope had special authority that would lessen the authority of all the other bishops. But in spite of the fact that it was a pope that objected to the growing authority of the pope, over time, tradition gave the pope more and more authority and this is perhaps the primary reason the major schism in the church between the East and the West came about.

 

[JRKH]

No one can work out their own salvation; it is the work of God within them. It is hard to explain and I know what Paul said, but that passage is referring to the Biblical view of sanctification, which is not the Catholic view…I mean no offense so forgive if I have. Our abilities to please God are absolute zero; it is only the regeneration and walking in Spirit and Truth, which is the work of God in us…this is the only thing that allows us to persevere to the end.
Philippians 1:6 “{For I am} confident of this very thing, that He who began a good work in you will perfect it until the day of Christ Jesus.”
The day of Jesus Christ will be either the Second Coming or death.

One of the most frustrating things to me is to find fellow Christians arguing past each other due to variations in terminology. The result is nothing but distractions and divisions. This is what I see happening here.

For a clear example of how the Catholic Church views the role of Grace in our lives I wish to refer to the words of Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter - NOVO MILLENNIO INEUNTE

(NOTE: Bolding and underlining is mine.)

The primacy of grace

1. If in the planning that awaits us we commit ourselves more confidently to a pastoral activity that gives personal and communal prayer its proper place, we shall be observing an essential principle of the Christian view of life: the primacy of grace. There is a temptation which perennially besets every spiritual journey and pastoral work: that of thinking that the results depend on our ability to act and to plan. God of course asks us really to cooperate with his grace, and therefore invites us to invest all our resources of intelligence and energy in serving the cause of the Kingdom. But it is fatal to forget that “without Christ we can do nothing” (cf. Jn 15:5).

It is prayer which roots us in this truth. It constantly reminds us of the primacy of Christ and, in union with him, the primacy of the interior life and of holiness. When this principle is not respected, is it any wonder that pastoral plans come to nothing and leave us with a disheartening sense of frustration? We then share the experience of the disciples in the Gospel story of the miraculous catch of fish: “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (Lk 5:5). This is the moment of faith, of prayer, of conversation with God, in order to open our hearts to the tide of grace and allow the word of Christ to pass through us in all its power: Duc in altum! On that occasion, it was Peter who spoke the word of faith: “At your word I will let down the nets” (ibid.). As this millennium begins, allow the Successor of Peter to invite the whole Church to make this act of faith, which expresses itself in a renewed commitment to prayer.

So What is the Church’s view of Grace in our Lives?
How and by whom are we saved, sanctified, justified or whatever other term we might wish to employ? It is by Christ. This is what the Church teaches and believes.

Peace
James

 

[joe370]

How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic? The first thing we have to do is prove that Peter actually means rock, not small stone, as non-Catholics are often taught. If they would just refer to reputable Protestant scholarship, they would finally come to grips with the obvious.

The translation of Matthew’s Gospel into Greek named Simon --“Petros” rather than “petra” because “petra” is a feminine noun and unsuitable for a man’s name. The translator had no problem substituting the masculine form “Petros” because in** Koine Greek**, which was the dialect in use at the time of the New Testament, “petra” and “petros” both meant the same thing, “rock.”

“Petros” and “petras” meant “small stone” and “large rock”** in some ancient Greek poetry,** centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. As Greek scholars –even non-Catholic scholars --admit, the words “petros” and “petra” were synonyms in first century Greek.

The difference between “petros” and “petras” can only be found in Attic Greek,** but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek** --an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both “petros” and “petra” simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the translation of Christ’s Aramaic into Greek would have been “lithos,” which means “small stone” in Koine Greek. However He did not!

Simon-Peter’s Aramaic name given by Christ is also preserved at later points in the New Testament: *“For I delivered unto you first of all that which also I received: that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; and that he was buried; and that he hath been raised on the third day according to the scriptures; and that he appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve” *(1Cor 15:3)

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Peter “confesses” that Jesus is the son of God!

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

And I tell you that you are petra (small pebble), and on this petros Large rock)…makes no sense. It would be like saying, And I tell you that you are a protestant and on this catholic I will build my church. It is grammatical chaos.

OR, And I tell you that you are petra and on your confession I will build my church. This simply re-writes scripture which is a big no-no! OR, And I tell you that you are kepha (cephas) and on this kepha (cephas --transliteration) I will build my church. the 2nd kepha refers directly back to the 1st kepha, and suddenly grammatical chaos is fixed.

You know if it said, And I tell you that you are a protestant and on this protestant I will build my church, all protestants would dance a jig. LOL

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus gives this unique distinction to Simon Bar-Jona renamed kepha transliteration --cephas before He says the same to His other Apostles. Why would He do that if He didn’t intend Simon renamed kepha to be the chief shepherd in His stead? Why did He even change His name to something that always referred to God?

The name “Rock” refers to God, for He is truly our unmovable rock: “The Lord is my rock (tsur) and my fortress” (Psalm 18:2); “Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 28:1); I will say unto God, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 42:9); Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock (tsur) and my salvation…My soul, wait thou only upon God … my rock (tsur) and my salvation… He is my rock(tsur) …” (ibid 62:2,6,7); “and they remembered that God was their rock (tsur)” (ibid. 78:35).

God is the rock. And not only is He called Rock, but the Hebrew word for rock (tsur), also means God.

But there is another person in the Old Testament who is called by this name rock (tsur) as well. Abraham, the father of the Jewish race is referred to as a “rock” in the Old Testament: “Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn … look unto Abraham your Father” (Isaias 51:1-2). Why does the Bible call Abraham “rock”? If we proceed to the New Testament we SEE that God (Jesus) is again called by the name Rock. "and the rock that followed them was Christ " (1 Cor. 10. Also see 1 Peter 2:6-7 and Romans 9:33). So we see that in both the Old Testament and the New, God is called "Rock. Yet we also see that God gave this name Rock (a name which belongs to God) to another man: and this man was Simon, bar Jona. In the Old Testament, Abraham, who was the Father of the Jewish nation, was only referred to as “Rock” in passing, yet Jesus did not just refer to Simon as “rock”, but went so far as to change his name to Rock! A permanent title! Jesus conveyed a name upon Simon which properly belonged to God! "And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (rock) (John 1:42). Is it just a coincidence that Jesus, who is the Rock, changed Peter’s name to Rock? No!..

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

I think you are right. Peter is the most illogical choice for building a Church. This means that the link is faith,a nd the providence of God, and not logic. The righteousness of God is foolishness to men. But, God indeed did build One Church, upon the foundations of the Apostles and Prophets, Peter being the keeper and feeder of His flock.

You’ve been reading Chesterton **IMHO, what you’ve said is an almost perfect answer to the question in the title. **​