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

[catholic1seeks]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

The only way is for people to admit that they believe Christ did not keep His promise, and that He did not remain with His Church, the Holy Spirit fell asleep at the wheel, and that the Catholic Church failed and went off the rails at some point in the past.

 

[Truthstalker]

The only way is for people to admit that they believe Christ did not keep His promise, and that He did not remain with His Church, the Holy Spirit fell asleep at the wheel, and that the Catholic Church failed and went off the rails at some point in the past.

Or that Christ is keeping His promise in a way other than as defined by the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Spirit is active in a way beyond its definition, and that the mixture of human elements and the divine in the Catholic Church now requires beliefs and allegiences beyond what Christ demands of His people.

That is one way.

Or that Peter was the rock but his foundational work stopped with him, with his sermon in Acts 2 to the Jews and initial outreach to the Gentiles later on. They point to Paul’s prominence and eclipsing him in the later part of Acts and in the volume of epistles, and argue Paul had a larger role in the church than Peter.

That is another way.

Or that Peter was the rock but as a type of every believer, so that each of us is a rock, confessing as he did that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is another way.

Or Peter is the rock, but the rock is much less than Catholics make it out to be, and has nothing to do with hierarchial structure.

That is another way.

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan? How come Paul wrote to Rome (not Peter) and never mentioned any future prominence of Rome, or Peter, or Peter’s place in Rome, or any idea of a papacy? How come 1 Clement is from the leaders of Rome, and the bishop of Rome is not mentioned? Clement’s name is not in it. How come, if the papal line is so important, we have contradictory lists of popes from the early church? How come the early church never clearly spelled out papal authority in the manner that today’s Catholics seem to claim for it?

Those are questions people ask.

 

[Tomster]

Or that Christ is keeping His promise in a way other than as defined by the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Spirit is active in a way beyond its definition, and that the mixture of human elements and the divine in the Catholic Church now requires beliefs and allegiences beyond what Christ demands of His people.

That is one way.

Or that Peter was the rock but his foundational work stopped with him, with his sermon in Acts 2 to the Jews and initial outreach to the Gentiles later on. They point to Paul’s prominence and eclipsing him in the later part of Acts and in the volume of epistles, and argue Paul had a larger role in the church than Peter.

That is another way.

Or that Peter was the rock but as a type of every believer, so that each of us is a rock, confessing as he did that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is another way.

Or Peter is the rock, but the rock is much less than Catholics make it out to be, and has nothing to do with hierarchial structure.

That is another way.

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan? How come Paul wrote to Rome (not Peter) and never mentioned any future prominence of Rome, or Peter, or Peter’s place in Rome, or any idea of a papacy? How come 1 Clement is from the leaders of Rome, and the bishop of Rome is not mentioned? Clement’s name is not in it. How come, if the papal line is so important, we have contradictory lists of popes from the early church? How come the early church never clearly spelled out papal authority in the manner that today’s Catholics seem to claim for it?

Those are questions people ask.

OR

 

[Tomster]

Or that Christ is keeping His promise in a way other than as defined by the Catholic Church, and that the Holy Spirit is active in a way beyond its definition, and that the mixture of human elements and the divine in the Catholic Church now requires beliefs and allegiences beyond what Christ demands of His people.

That is one way.

Or that Peter was the rock but his foundational work stopped with him, with his sermon in Acts 2 to the Jews and initial outreach to the Gentiles later on. They point to Paul’s prominence and eclipsing him in the later part of Acts and in the volume of epistles, and argue Paul had a larger role in the church than Peter.

That is another way.

Or that Peter was the rock but as a type of every believer, so that each of us is a rock, confessing as he did that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.

That is another way.

Or Peter is the rock, but the rock is much less than Catholics make it out to be, and has nothing to do with hierarchial structure.

That is another way.

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan? How come Paul wrote to Rome (not Peter) and never mentioned any future prominence of Rome, or Peter, or Peter’s place in Rome, or any idea of a papacy? How come 1 Clement is from the leaders of Rome, and the bishop of Rome is not mentioned? Clement’s name is not in it. How come, if the papal line is so important, we have contradictory lists of popes from the early church? How come the early church never clearly spelled out papal authority in the manner that today’s Catholics seem to claim for it?

Those are questions people ask.

OR

The history of the infant Church shows the son of Jona had full consciousness of being “pastor” (shepherd) not only of the lambs but also of the sheep - of all Christ’s flock; in fact, immediately after the Ascension, Peter acted as the supreme head of the Church. It was Peter who proposed in the Cenacle that a substitute be named to take the place of Judas Iscariot in the Apostolic College; it was Peter who was the first to preach on Pentecost; it was Peter who received the first pagans into the bosom of the Church at Cornelius’ home, although St. Paul is par excellence the missionary of the Gentiles; it was Peter who questioned and reproved the couple guilty of lying; it was Peter who, like a president, was the first to speak at the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[Truthstalker]

OR

The history of the infant Church shows the son of Jona had full consciousness of being “pastor” (shepherd) not only of the lambs but also of the sheep - of all Christ’s flock; in fact, immediately after the Ascension, Peter acted as the supreme head of the Church. It was Peter who proposed in the Cenacle that a substitute be named to take the place of Judas Iscariot in the Apostolic College; it was Peter who was the first to preach on Pentecost; it was Peter who received the first pagans into the bosom of the Church at Cornelius’ home, although St. Paul is par excellence the missionary of the Gentiles; it was Peter who questioned and reproved the couple guilty of lying; it was Peter who, like a president, was the first to speak at the Council of Jerusalem.

None of which is contradictory to some of the alternatives I listed (James, by the way, spoke last, like a president - it depends on your interpretation, no?). Remember, this thread is about “how can people believe but still not”, as opposed to it being about “believe and be Catholic” .
I was just answering a question. Or is this a bait and switch thread?

 

[dthurmond]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Where is this in Matthew? You have written down 22:252???

Please correct and advise…someone, anyone???

 

[Mister_De]

Where is this in Matthew? You have written down 22:252???

Please correct and advise…someone, anyone???

It’s just commentary. It’s not scripture. It’s a guy telling you about Matthew 16:18.

 

[iamACE]

How come Catholics seize on Peter being the rock when in the same passage Jesus calls him Satan?

Is Peter and Satan the same person?

 

[JRKH]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

One of the ways I have heard it explained:
The Rock is not Peter’s person, but Peter’s faith.
To support this they refer to a difference in the Greek term petra in the passage. If I remember right the First term is Petro and the second is Petra. The reason for this in the Greek has to do with grammer and not actual meaning. Petro, means Large Rock and Petra means small stone.

The problem with this is that Jesus didn’t speak Greek when talking to the Apostles. He spoke, most likely, Aramaic. In Aramaic the term for Rock is Cephas and there is no grammatical issue in Aramaic. Rock means Rock.

If I have made an error in the above explaination please feel free to set me straight.

Peace
James

 

[JRKH]

None of which is contradictory to some of the alternatives I listed (James, by the way, spoke last, like a president - it depends on your interpretation, no?). Remember, this thread is about “how can people believe but still not”, as opposed to it being about “believe and be Catholic” .
I was just answering a question. Or is this a bait and switch thread?

I certainly hope no one is trying to “Bait and Switch” though we never know which way a thread will go.

You proposed many possible alternatives, and questions that people try to answer. But there is a little something missing many times in peoples minds. that is an ability to place themselves into the time frame of the early Church.
The church immediately following Pentacost was not, as some might suppose, sitting around in council working out some sort of business plan and determining offices, roles and duties. They were preaching and exhorting and establishing a body of believers. That Peter had a prominant role in this cannot be disputed. Exactly what the role was, or how it was viewed in the early Church we can only know by extrapolation from the bible and the writings of the ECF’s.
Another factor that people cannot quite get their head around is that of communications and distances in those days. Today we can communicate instantly and be anywhere in the world in a day. Back then a trip from Jeruselum to Rome would take months. Back in those days, they didn’t keep minutes of meetings, there was no printing presses, or other means of disseminating large amounts of written information. Therefore the arrangement of authority was different.

We, as Catholics, accept that there has been an unbroken line of succession, not just from Peter, but from other apostles, down through the early Church who built up the Church in the ways of God and as the Holy Spirit guided. Since the primacy of Peter and the See of Rome was seen and built upon from early on, we believe there is a good apostolic foundation there. The fact that Hierarchal structure may have changed doesn’t negate that foundation, or authority.

Peace
James

 

[da_xavier]

How to prove that the Church is “a visible Church”? My Protestant friend and, sadly, my beloved uncle who converted from Catholicism said that the word ekklesia itself means “people who are called out.” So the church is “an invisible Church,” not a hierarchical organization.

 

[JRKH]

How to prove that the Church is “a visible Church”? My Protestant friend and, sadly, my beloved uncle who converted from Catholicism said that the word ekklesia itself means “people who are called out.” So the church is “an invisible Church,” not a hierarchical organization.

The Following is from New Advent. Click Here for the full article:

In the writings of the New Testament the words are sharply distinguished. With them ecclesia denotes the Church of Christ; synagoga, the Jews still adhering to the worship of the Old Covenant. Occasionally, it is true, ecclesia is employed in its general significance of “assembly” (Acts 19:32; 1 Corinthians 14:19); and synagoga occurs once in reference to a gathering of Christians, though apparently of a non-religious character (James 2:2) But ecclesia is never used by the Apostles to denote the Jewish Church. The word as a technical expression had been transferred to the community of Christian believers.

I think that the Early Church Fathers would be very surprised to find that the Church was “invisible” since they went about establishing gorups and appointing Bishops to minister to these groups. In addition they wrote letters to groups to address specific issues that were causing problems.
These same ECF, whether Apostles themselves or appointed by Apostles, comminicated regularly with each other, and met regularly to discuss issues and clarify questions. There was never any question in these men as to their being some “invisible” Church, it was all One Apostolic and Universal (that is Catholic) Church. The Authority rested in the Bishops with the Successor of Peter being the head of this Group.

Peace
James

 

[tomarin]

and why is there no doctrinal unity in this so-called “invisible” church? why did the early church bother to combat heretical movements if doctrinal purity is not an important issue?

 

[da_xavier]

Thanks, JRKH and tomarin!

I ask this question because he has an argument from Act 19:39 “And if you inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful assembly.” The word “assembly” derived from the word “ekklesia.”

I will read your source soon.

About Matt 16:18, he also has different interpretation

Matt 16:18,
KAGO [And I] DE [yet] SU [to you] LEGO [am saying] HOTI [that] SU [you] EIMI [are] PETROS [Peter] KAI [and] EPI [on] HOUTOS [this] HO [the] PETRA [rock] OIKODOMEO * EGO [of Me] HO [the] EKKLESIA [out-called] KAI [and] PULE [gates] HADES [of un-perceived] OU [not] KATISCHUO [shall be prevailing] AUTOS [of her].

He highlighted the phrase OIKODOMEO EGO. The phrase means “I shall building of Me.”

As far as I know, it should be “I will build my church.” What kind of explanation shall I give to him? I don’t understand Greek.*

 

[OraLabora]

A couple of points for Truthstalker:

If Jesus is keeping His promise in a different way, it means He changed His promise. Then the Bible is wrong.

The “Rock” issue also tends to omit important context: “I shall give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven”. This implies some sort of authority. It would also make sense that somehow this authority must be passed on until Christ’s return.

And “on this Rock I shall found my Church, and never shall the gates of Hades prevail against it”; this implies that the Church would never apostatize. Christians that claim that it did and that only a core of the Church remains true to the faith, are claiming the Bible is wrong. It did not claim a portion of the Church would not apostatize. It claimed that the Church would not apostatize; therefore it is those who have left the Church over the years, that have apostatized.

It would therefore mean that if Christ changed His promise, He has effectively abandoned the Church He very clearly founded.

If the Church apostatized, then the Bible, and Christ’s promise, is wrong.

If Christ changed His promise for other reasons, then the Bible is wrong.

If Peter does NOT have authority, then what the Bible says about keys and binding and loosing, is wrong.

There is only one objective way that the Bible can be right:

1. Christ founded a Church;
2. He gave Peter authority over that Church (the “Keys”);
3. He promised that the Church would never apostatize (the “Gates of Hades” shall not prevail against it).

simply because that’s what it says in the Bible. There is no logical wiggle room without distorting the words.

 

[Contarini]

For example, CRAIG L. BLOMBERG

( CONTEMPORARY BAPTIST)

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

Because saying Peter is the rock does not necessarily imply that Jesus was establishing an office in which Peter would have successors. Maybe he was speaking of Peter’s unique role. Maybe he was addressing Peter as the representative believer. Maybe he was addressing Peter as the prototypical bishop (this is what the Orthodox think). There are a bunch of possibilities. Many Catholic apologists rest way too much on this one passage. It’s a bad habit they have picked up from fundamentalist Protestants who sling prooftexts about.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Thanks, JRKH and tomarin!

I ask this question because he has an argument from Act 19:39 “And if you inquire after any other matter, it may be decided in a lawful assembly.” The word “assembly” derived from the word “ekklesia.”

I will read your source soon.

About Matt 16:18, he also has different interpretation

Matt 16:18,
KAGO [And I] DE [yet] SU [to you] LEGO [am saying] HOTI [that] SU [you] EIMI [are] PETROS [Peter] KAI [and] EPI [on] HOUTOS [this] HO [the] PETRA [rock] OIKODOMEO * EGO [of Me] HO [the] EKKLESIA [out-called] KAI [and] PULE [gates] HADES [of un-perceived] OU [not] KATISCHUO [shall be prevailing] AUTOS [of her].

He highlighted the phrase OIKODOMEO EGO. The phrase means “I shall building of Me.”

As far as I know, it should be “I will build my church.” What kind of explanation shall I give to him? I don’t understand Greek.*

IN Greek Petro means Rock and petra means rock, the difference in spelling is grammatical. Some have argued that petra means small stone but ehpoin ti moot for the following reasons.
Tell him that Jesus did not speak Greek to His apostles. Jesus Spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic the Word for Rock is Kaphas (sp). There is no differance in spelling or meaning. Jesus said to Simon that "Though art Kaphas (Rock) and upon this Kaphas (Rock) I will build my Church.

The word Ekklesia can be translated as either assembly or church, but virtually every Bible, protestant or Catholic has it translated as Church. In addition the new testiment and the Early Church Fathers constantly worked and wrote for unity among the faithful.

Our Lord gave the Apostles authority. To bind, to loose and to build His Church. He Gave Peter the Keys to heaven, which in the understanding of that ancient time means He made Peter the Steward of His Kingdom. That Stewardship has passed down, unbroken through the apostolic succession in the Catholic Church.

If his interpretation of the passage is correct and Jesus left a “spiritual” kingdom, why did the Apostles teach differently. Why did the Apostles and Bishops and Presbyters, and Deacons work so hard to build up a SINGLE, authoritative “Assembly” base on the, sometimes written, but mostly Oral teachings of Christ as passed on through the Apostles.

Protestants cannot accept the authority of the Church. In fact they must reject it outright, without understanding it. The only way they can do that is to re-interpret scripture to “winnow” out that authority.
Did you ever wonder why Protestants never quote the ECF’s? Could it be because the ECF’s support a unified Church under the Authority of the Apostolic line of the Bishops?

Peace
James

 

[Contarini]

A couple of points for Truthstalker:

If Jesus is keeping His promise in a different way, it means He changed His promise.

No. It just means that He didn’t mean what you think He meant.

This implies some sort of authority. It would also make sense that somehow this authority must be passed on until Christ’s return.

Most likely but not definitely. (It might refer to Peter’s specifically apostolic work–I don’t agree with this but it’s a logical possibility.) And it doesn’t address the question of who has inherited that authority. It might be passed on to all believers, or to all priests, or to all bishops.

And “on this Rock I shall found my Church, and never shall the gates of Hades prevail against it”; this implies that the Church would never apostatize. Christians that claim that it did and that only a core of the Church remains true to the faith, are claiming the Bible is wrong. It did not claim a portion of the Church would not apostatize. It claimed that the Church would not apostatize; therefore it is those who have left the Church over the years, that have apostatized.

That doesn’t make any sense. The passage does not give any criteria for determining who is the Church. (Just because one particular Christian communion claims succession from Peter and is centered on the city where Peter almost certainly died is does not necessarily mean that that communion really has Peter’s authority.) It does not give any guidance for determining which of the post-Reformation bodies is the true Church (I think they all are, but I’m not arguing for that view here).

You do know, don’t you, that most Protestants accept the early and medieval Church as being at the very least a true Church, and that the majority of modern Protestants also consider the post-Reformation Roman Catholic Church (and the Eastern Catholic Churches as well!) to be a true church (or more precisely, a collection of true local churches)? Often Catholics argue against a hardline fundamentalist Great-Apostasy straw man. You’re wasting your breath if that is what you are doing.

If the Church apostatized

Who is saying anything about apostasy?

There is only one objective way that the Bible can be right:

1. Christ founded a Church;
2. He gave Peter authority over that Church (the “Keys”);
3. He promised that the Church would never apostatize (the “Gates of Hades” shall not prevail against it).

simply because that’s what it says in the Bible. There is no logical wiggle room without distorting the words.

This doesn’t prove anything. Who is claiming that the Church founded by Christ apostasized? Only a few strict Protestants even claim (these days) that the Tridentine Catholic Church is apostate (and you cannot prove from Matt. 16 that the Council of Trent is a true Council). You are arguing against a straw man.

Edwin

 

[JRKH]

Because saying Peter is the rock does not necessarily imply that Jesus was establishing an office in which Peter would have successors. Maybe he was speaking of Peter’s unique role. Maybe he was addressing Peter as the representative believer. Maybe he was addressing Peter as the prototypical bishop (this is what the Orthodox think). There are a bunch of possibilities. Many Catholic apologists rest way too much on this one passage. It’s a bad habit they have picked up from fundamentalist Protestants who sling prooftexts about.

Edwin

18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter (Kephas, Rock), and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

When Jesus Gave the Keys of the Kingdom to Peter, He establishes Peter as Steward of His Kingdom. This is an expression that would be well understood at the time. Peter (and His successors) were to Take care of and Rule Jesus Kingdom until Jesus’ return.

Peace
James