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

[Contarini]

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

You are adding the phrase “and his successors.” But the passage says nothing about who these successors might be. They might be all believers, or all bishops, or all priests. You can’t keep overlooking this if you expect Protestants and Orthodox to take your arguments seriously.

That there is some reference here to Isaiah 22 is very likely. But that does not prove that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors. It just proves that Jesus was giving Peter and those represented by Peter (whether Popes, bishops, priests, all believers. . . . ) some kind of prime-ministerial authority in the Kingdom. And I wouldn’t say that even the Isaiah 22 connection is obvious. You say that it would have been obvious at the time, but you cite no reliable secondary sources that have studied contemporary records and come to this conclusion.

Edwin

 

[theAuthor]

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.

Yeah, that petros/ petra thing really annoys me. I put it on the same level as “the Pope is the antiChrist from Revelation” junk.

As for the idea of an invisible Church, I think that is eniticing. Some members of the RCC are hell-bound, are they not? According to some other threads here they are, anyway. And some non-Catholics will be saved, according to the Church. So that means that those saved aren’t necessarily all a member of a certain sect such as “Jewish” or “Catholic.” ie not a part of a single, visible body. The “saved” would be known only to God. This does not deny the Truth of “apart from her (the RCC) there is no salvation.” It just seems that many of “God’s people” lie outside the confines of the RCC, although as the Catechism says they are our brothers and sisters. Just my 2c.

I liked Truthstalkers post because I think a “long bow” is sometimes drawn with the Papacy, and many points you make are valid, such as the term Pope not being in use in Early Church times. Even if one agreed with the idea of Peter being the head of the Early Church, Jesus did not say that he would pass that power down through generations. That is seperate leap of faith. Apostolic succession is Biblical, but obviously not exactly the same as in Bible times, or there’d still be exactly 12 Apostles. Some things have changed.

 

[kaycee]

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].

I believe the position that Peter was the rock was a minority position among the early church fathers, certainly not “unanimous”. One could also say that Peter is the rock but not believe that Matt 16: created a dynasty of popes as there is certainly nothing in the text that even hints at that.

 

[JRKH]

You are adding the phrase “and his successors.” But the passage says nothing about who these successors might be. They might be all believers, or all bishops, or all priests. You can’t keep overlooking this if you expect Protestants and Orthodox to take your arguments seriously.

You’ll notice that I placed the phrase re successors in parethases. Surely no one would think I am trying to change a scripture.

That there is some reference here to Isaiah 22 is very likely. But that does not prove that the bishops of Rome are Peter’s successors. It just proves that Jesus was giving Peter **and those represented by Peter **(whether Popes, bishops, priests, all believers. . . . ) some kind of prime-ministerial authority in the Kingdom. And I wouldn’t say that even the Isaiah 22 connection is obvious. You say that it would have been obvious at the time, but you cite no reliable secondary sources that have studied contemporary records and come to this conclusion.

Edwin

Surely you are making a much larger jump in your thinking than I am. When Jesus was talking to Peter they were not alone. If Jesus was speaking in a general sense, why doesn’t the verse indicate that Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles? Then it would make sense to think in terms of a broader authority. But this is not the case. Jesus Named Peter Rock, and gave him the Keys of teh Kingdom.

As it is, the verse clearly gives the keys to Peter and only Peter. While we might legitimately argue with our eastern brothers about the Primacy of Rome as opposed to an eccliasticial assembly of Bishops with clear Apostolic Credentials (very important), that argument is somewhat muted when discussing the issue with Protestants since in almost every case, protestants trace back to a breakaway from Rome.

Again, I will go back to the idea of Keys being the traditional symbol of authority given to a Steward by a King. These Keys would allow the Steward to rule in the Kings absence. Naturally, if the Steward died before the return of the King, the Kingdom wouldn’t just fall into confusion, rather a new Steward would be chosen. This is what has happened in the Church.

The Bishops understood the need for a final authority, that Steward, and the Bishop of Rome has been traditionally held as such since very early in the Church. Irenaeus of Lyons in his writings “Against Heresies”, lists the succession of the Roman Bishops specifially to demonstrate the continuity of apostolic succession. However, the Church has always understood the importance of councils and utilized them throughout Her history to clarify teachings and promote unity.

Peace
James

 

[theAuthor]

Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

 

[Contarini]

You’ll notice that I placed the phrase re successors in parethases. Surely no one would think I am trying to change a scripture.

Surely you are making a much larger jump in your thinking than I am. When Jesus was talking to Peter they were not alone. If Jesus was speaking in a general sense, why doesn’t the verse indicate that Jesus is speaking to all the Apostles? Then it would make sense to think in terms of a broader authority. But this is not the case. Jesus Named Peter Rock, and gave him the Keys of teh Kingdom.

As it is, the verse clearly gives the keys to Peter and only Peter. While we might legitimately argue with our eastern brothers about the Primacy of Rome as opposed to an eccliasticial assembly of Bishops with clear Apostolic Credentials (very important), that argument is somewhat muted when discussing the issue with Protestants since in almost every case, protestants trace back to a breakaway from Rome.

Again, I will go back to the idea of Keys being the traditional symbol of authority given to a Steward by a King. These Keys would allow the Steward to rule in the Kings absence. Naturally, if the Steward died before the return of the King, the Kingdom wouldn’t just fall into confusion, rather a new Steward would be chosen. This is what has happened in the Church.

The Bishops understood the need for a final authority, that Steward, and the Bishop of Rome has been traditionally held as such since very early in the Church. Irenaeus of Lyons in his writings “Against Heresies”, lists the succession of the Roman Bishops specifially to demonstrate the continuity of apostolic succession. However, the Church has always understood the importance of councils and utilized them throughout Her history to clarify teachings and promote unity.

Peace
James

The reason Peter is singled out is quite obvious. Peter is the one who has confessed Jesus as the Messiah. It does not follow that other apostles, or other believers in general, are excluded.

And it’s simply too much of a stretch to say that because the language here sounds like language used for a steward in Isaiah 22, therefore you can make all sorts of extrapolations from what you think stewards did in the ancient world and use them to argue for the Papacy. This is the place where Hahn is weakest (I don’t know if you’re getting this from Hahn, but it is one of his favorite arguments). He’s imaginative, but he makes his parallels and analogies hold way more weight than is reasonable.

I wasn’t accusing you of altering Scripture. I was simply pointing out that the text says nothing about successors. You cannot get that from exegesis. You have to do theology and appeal to tradition and talk about the actual alternatives we are faced with in Christendom today. Do all of these things, and you have a strong case. But you can’t just proof-text.

Edwin

 

[theAuthor]

Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

 

[kaycee]

Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

No one knows for sure. He was probably one among a plurality of elders.

 

[JRKH]

The reason Peter is singled out is quite obvious. Peter is the one who has confessed Jesus as the Messiah. It does not follow that other apostles, or other believers in general, are excluded.

And it’s simply too much of a stretch to say that because the language here sounds like language used for a steward in Isaiah 22, therefore you can make all sorts of extrapolations from what you think stewards did in the ancient world and use them to argue for the Papacy. This is the place where Hahn is weakest (I don’t know if you’re getting this from Hahn, but it is one of his favorite arguments). He’s imaginative, but he makes his parallels and analogies hold way more weight than is reasonable.

I wasn’t accusing you of altering Scripture. I was simply pointing out that the text says nothing about successors. You cannot get that from exegesis. You have to do theology and appeal to tradition and talk about the actual alternatives we are faced with in Christendom today. Do all of these things, and you have a strong case. But you can’t just proof-text.

Edwin

I have gotten nothing from “Hahn”, I assume you are refering to Scott Hahn here. Obviously he is not the only one to make this connection though.

I say the following now in all Christian Charity. I may not be a very good apologist at this point, but I can recognize smoke and mirrors when I see them.

1. I see a passage and read it as a whole. I know that Jesus is talking to Peter Personally, or else the writer would have clarified that Jesus turned from Peter after naming him Rock and addressed all of the Apostles.
2. While there may be “Other Possibilities”, the Keys given to the King’s Steward is the most obvious and logical given the timeframe and context.

As far as, “actual alternatives we are faced with in Christendom today”, the fact remains that the Catholic Church has the longest and strongest “pedegree” to apostolic succession, whether you agree with idea of a supreme ponitif, or equality among Bishops. She also has the most consistant line of teaching from the Time of Christ Himself. The only “Alternatives” in Christendom is whether one wishes to get their teaching from the Church Jesus established on the Apostles and the Early Church Fathers, or from one of the Breakaways of the 16th century.

Peace
James

 

[theAuthor]

Exactly. It’s all a bit unclear before 300AD. It’s certainly not a case of Peter being the first Pope, because such a thing did not even exist then.

I think the problem is that if a someone admits a special role for Peter it undermines sola scriptura. I think that’s the real issue here. On this **one issue **rests whether or not one has to accept **all the other **(extra-Scriptural) tenets of the RCC.

I do, BTW, so don’t stone me! But it’s not as simple as many make out. It’s a chain thing: Jesus laid Peter as the foundation, Peter brought about a replacement for Judas, Peter was replaced when he died. Peter’s replacement then had the same powers as Peter. His replacement could make new rules which bound all the faithful and on it goes.

I think it is possible to believe that Jesus spoke to Peter as the founder of the church , but to not believe in things further down the chain, like Peter’s successor having the same power, etc.

 

[PC_Master]

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 – this is yet another post in which you’ve quickly, clearly, and concisely shown a very logical position which isn’t the same as the RCC position. Very nice.

Tell him that Jesus did not speak Greek to His apostles. Jesus Spoke Aramaic and in Aramaic the Word for Rock is Kaphas (sp).

The name used for Simon-Peter was clearly kepha/keepa/kephas, yes. But let’s look at some more details…

We know (with reasonable certainty) this is the Aramaic name used for Simon-Peter (as opposed to other possibilities) precisely because it’s transliterated in the NT as Cephas. It’s fairly reasonable, according to some articles I’ve read, to assume that this is related to the Hebrew word keph, which was a generic term for the substance of stone/rock, or sometimes a term for a smaller rock.

But here we’re talking not just of a rock (kepha/petros/Simon-Peter), but of a foundation Christ’s church. He’s going to build his church on “this rock” (petra). What kind of rock might this be? Well, given Jesus own use, we can say that it would be a fairly massive one. Here’s why…

When Jesus spoke to the masses of those who listened to his teachings, he likened them to the wise man. This wise man built his house on “the rock”. This rock served as a firm foundation, preventing the rains and the floods from washing his house away. Knowing just a little of ancient building practices (just Google for it) tells us this would be a rather massive rocky foundation, as opposed to something with several smaller rocks, pebbles, or even sand. After all, the foolish man’s house was washed away.

So, I think it’s reasonable to say that the rock Christ’s church will be built on (metaphorically), designed to last for all time, can be no less than the rock that the wise man builds his house on. So, let’s see what that rock is…

The appropriate Aramaic word for that is shu’a, not kepha. Aside from numerous transational references regarding scripture, we can be further certain that it was a shu’a Christ intended to build his church on.

If you’re familiar (and I am only mildly so) with the great rock city of Petra (yes, the same Greek word as Christ said he’d build his church on), you know that it was a rather massive rock mass. In Hebrew, this city was called Selah. Now I can’t clearly find evidence that Shu’a was ever a name of the city in question, but I think there’s reasonable scholarship to indicate that Selah was a name, and it was later called Petra.

Further, selah and petra are both used in other places in literature to refer to large masses, often indicative of God (check out the OT and the Septaugint to see the translational use).

On top of all this, we’re sitting at Caesarea Phillipi during the conversation. The city itself (they may not have actually been in the city, but very near it), was atop a rather large rock mass. In the side of this mass was a cave where the god Pan was worshipped. It also contained a pool known as “the gates of hades”.

Wikipedia image of the rock mass with Pan’s cave in it

So, Jesus takes them to the site of a very large rock, uses an Aramaic word (possibly shu’a, or some other equivalent of petra/sela) that represents a rock mass, and also, separately, uses kepha speaking of Simon-Peter.

To assume he said kepha twice is to assume that Christ thought of such a huge rock mass as only a kepha. It is also to assume that Christ would build his church on a kepha, when God himself is often called a fortress, mountain or rock (selah), and when Christ himself said that a wise man builds his house on such a thing (petra, shu’a, sela – not keph or kepha).

The difficulty comes to translating this into Greek, where we have two distinctly different words that refer to rock, but lack exact Greek counterparts to the Aramaic. Sure, selah/shu’a/petra is an obvious connection, but what do you do with keph/kepha? In Greek, we’ve only got two other choices:

1. lithos – This specifically refers to a very small stone, able to be passed from person to person (perhaps the size of a loaf of bread). This isn’t very fitting for Simon-Peter, I think, and isn’t really all that equivalent to the Hebrew/Aramaic.
2. petros – Though some have argued this to be a grammatical issue (which is plausible), there also exists (as I understand – I haven’t seen this myself) Greek poetry written within a couple of generations of Christ that uses the word petros to refer to a smaller sized rock, somewhere in between that of a lithos and a petra. This seems a better fit than lithos, to me.

Conclusive proof? Perhaps not. But it’s at least as plausible as the Roman Catholic position, with a good deal more logic supporting it.

However, if a Roman Catholic would like to explain why shu’a/sela/petra (large massive rock) is fitting for a wise man to build his house on, but Christ uses only a kepha for his very own church, I’d really like to hear it. Noone has in the past taken up this argument, but I really hope that someone will.

The word Ekklesia can be translated as either assembly or church, but virtually every Bible, protestant or Catholic has it translated as Church.

The word, to my knowledge, has pre-biblical use that represents a “calling out” of townspeople for a meeting – a gathering, or ekklesia. This was not a strictly religious word, as was that representing synagogue gatherers.

Protestants cannot accept the authority of the Church. In fact they must reject it outright, without understanding it.

Although I was raised thinking that Roman Catholicism was wrong, my greatest rejection of its teachings has come from better understanding them.

Did you ever wonder why Protestants never quote the ECF’s?

No, because I’ve seen many Protestant authors who do. More interesting to me is why Roman Catholics swing the same set of quotes around, over and over, and ignore any challenges/responses that come against them.

 

[centurion210]

There are a “gozillion” quotes from early Church fathers that clearly show that the Bishop of Rome had a major role in all disputes.

I just finished reading “The Early Papacy” by Adrian Fortescue. This book I believe was written in 1920 and covers the early papacy up to the year 451 (the Synod of Chalcedon)

Considering that the most complete canon of the Bible had just then been completed, essentially the same Bible used by Catholics today, it seems quite clear that a functioning papacy was well in hand from the very very earliest times in the church.

It amazes me that Protestants have such a command of the words of the Bible, but know absolutely nothing about the historical Church. When they are confronted with these writings; they just dismiss them.

Peace

 

[PC_Master]

There are a “gozillion” quotes from early Church fathers that clearly show that the Bishop of Rome had a major role in all disputes.

Actually, there are very few, compared to what we should see, had it not been the case that the concept of the papacy came into being over time.

Considering that the most complete canon of the Bible had just then been completed, essentially the same Bible used by Catholics today, it seems quite clear that a functioning papacy was well in hand from the very very earliest times in the church.

What? What does the papacy have to do with the canon (I mean, unless you presuppose the Roman Catholic model to be true)?

It amazes me that Protestants have such a command of the words of the Bible, but know absolutely nothing about the historical Church. When they are confronted with these writings; they just dismiss them.

Such blanket statements serve only to ease your mind after ignoring my post.

Seriously though – many Protestants on this forum (myself included) have dealt at length with ECF quotes. The problem is that any time the stereotypical Roman Catholic response is effectively countered, be it with an ECF or otherwise, the response seems to go ignored by many of the Roman Catholics here. Such is the case with the point I made in my previous post – I’ve asked several times, and dealt quite thoroughly with the RC apologetics, and yet receive no response to the challenge I posed, except perhaps a reiteration of Roman Catholic dogma, completely ignoring my point.

So, please, do not use such blanket statements. If you want to show that there was clearly a papacy in the first century church, go for it (in another thread). Send me a PM about it too, and I’ll read (and possibly respond if I have something to contribute). But don’t just say “well, you obviously have no idea what you’re talking about” without providing any supporting evidence. It’s just as bad as saying Jesus must have used kepha twice in Matthew 16:18 – because that’s the standard canned answer you’ve read that agrees with your point of view.

As to the central topic – I think Edwin has pretty well covered the options. If a Protestant holds Peter to be the rock of Matthew 16:18, yet remains Protestant, that person either (a) hasn’t thought their position through logically and completely or (b) they don’t think the status of rock referred specifically to Peter and a line of monarchal successors (the papacy), but to something else instead (Peter as representing all believers, etc). Generally, Roman Catholics assume that if you agree to Peter’s primacy, that you automatically agree to the primacy of Rome thorughout history, but the two are separate issues.

 

[Frater_Bovious]

As to the central topic – I think Edwin has pretty well covered the options. If a Protestant holds Peter to be the rock of Matthew 16:18, yet remains Protestant, that person either (a) hasn’t thought their position through logically and completely or (b) they don’t think the status of rock referred specifically to Peter and a line of monarchal successors (the papacy), but to something else instead (Peter as representing all believers, etc). Generally, Roman Catholics assume that if you agree to Peter’s primacy, that you automatically agree to the primacy of Rome thorughout history, but the two are separate issues.

Hello all. I’ve been reading this with quite some interest and will first state I am Catholic, and secondly that I am not versed in early chuch history etc.

It does seem clear to me that Christ’s words had some sort of meaning or weight or they wouldn’t have bothered to record them. So, one question is, what does it mean to be a rock upon which a church is built, regardless of aramaic or greek vocabulary or grammar. What would be the point of this statement by Jesus? Also the keys to the kingdom thing, whether or not referencing a Steward relationship, the words still have a meaning and a weight. Certainly they weren’t tossed off into an ideological void just for the sake of causing this type of discussion.

It is evident from the Acts of the Apostles that no one was really pointing to any one particular person other than Jesus for their teaching authority. That is to say, Paul clearly sent others on a mission with no mention of some kind of blessing from Peter. If that part of the keys of the kingdom thing mattered, I would think it would have survived to this day.

Also clear is that 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?

At the risk of dramatically oversimplifying, it seems that there is a certain entrenchment that simply prohibits productive dialog. From my (Catholic) perspective, it would seem that if one bought into the idea of a valid and continuing papacy, then intellectual integrity would require becoming Catholic. For someone convinced that the Catholic Church has lost its way, they would seem to have to deny the validity of the papcy.

So the whole things seems like a non-starter to me. Yet, my sense is that no one really wants there to be no dialog regarding these issues. Is there a starting point upon which there is agreement?

Mark

 

[Gofer]

Do not be befuddled by words, it is the non-Catholics’ greastest tactic. Confusion, Obfuscation, those are their tools. Do not the testimonies of two thousand years have no effect. There are no one so blind and deaf as those who have to be so, and they’re digging their own pit.

 

[MIZER]

It is evident from the Acts of the Apostles that no one was really pointing to any one particular person other than Jesus for their teaching authority. That is to say, Paul clearly sent others on a mission with no mention of some kind of blessing from Peter.

Yes there is a blessing of sorts from Peter to Paul before Paul starts his mission. It is in the form of a handshake. Also, Paul calls the original 12 the Super Apostles. Saint Paul was very human and we can see his arrogance poking through his humble nature at times. There can be no doubt, however, that Saint Paul recognized authority and he knew from whence it came. He would never have made the mistake the “reformers” made and thought that the final authority on Earth was to be the Bible and not a man commissioned (ordained) by Christ himself.

To say that Christ intended a mans faith to be the foundation of His Church is not logical. Human faith is no rock. Peters faith failed when the chips where down and we have all experienced the ebbing and flowing of our own faith. Many lose faith all together, falling into atheism. This can’t possibly be the element Christ would have used to lay the foundation for His One Church.

Non-catholics simply cannot interpret scripture as a whole on this issue and maintain any intellectual honesty, lest they be compelled to conversion. As a result we get the convoluted mess offered by PC Master and we are expected to untangle his every point. When we reasonably do so, he will simply continue to argue.

PC Master,

All you have to do is interpret scripture as a whole and you will see that the papacy is born out there, backed by, perhaps not all, but a compelling number of ECF’s. The most compelling passage in the NT which leads one to accept that Christ did not leave us orphans, that He did not leave His One Church to be a ship with no rutter, is His prayer to the Father on the night before he died. Jesus prayed, “that they may be one as you father and I are one.” There is simply no way to reconcile the thousands of opposing denominations with the word, ONE, unless you divide the Gospel into as many pieces (which is precisely what the the protestants, followed by the evangelical/fundamentalists have done), deciding for yourself which “piece” of the Gospel is “essential for salvation” and which “piece” is not. The Gospel of Christ is, like His body, His Church, ONE.

The only possible way to have unity in any body, any assembly, is to have one, authoritative voice. This is what we see prefigurement for in the OT and this is what is born out in the new. Of course you must take the Sacred Text as a whole, and when interpreting a single verse such as Matt 16:18, you must remember all other verses as well as the sense of the Bible, again, as a whole. This is what the poor souls of your ilk refuse to do. And that refusal is a requirement, neccesary in order to uphold the prized traditions of 16th century men, Sola Scriptura/Sola Fide.

In Him, With Him, Through Him.
Mizer

 

[JRKH]

Frater,
Thank you for your well thought out and well presented post. You are right there is a great chasm of both time and theology that we are trying to bridge and it is most difficult. Sometimes all one can hope to do is place an idea in someones "ear’ and hope the Lord will build on it.

Hello all. I’ve been reading this with quite some interest and will first state I am Catholic, and secondly that I am not versed in early chuch history etc.

It does seem clear to me that Christ’s words had some sort of meaning or weight or they wouldn’t have bothered to record them. So, one question is, what does it mean to be a rock upon which a church is built, regardless of aramaic or greek vocabulary or grammar. What would be the point of this statement by Jesus? Also the keys to the kingdom thing, whether or not referencing a Steward relationship, the words still have a meaning and a weight. Certainly they weren’t tossed off into an ideological void just for the sake of causing this type of discussion.

Very true, and I thank you for, “cutting through the excrement”, as it were.
After pondering my posts and the responses from others last night, I began to wonder.
Our protestant bretheren here have posted some interesting, and even viable alternative meanings to the passage under discussion and I wouldn’t say that there isn’t some merit in them. However, if they were reading this same passage without any prior knowledge of the Gospels, churches or 2000 years of history, would they still read it as having all of these varying possible meanings? Or would they take the passage at its most obvious. That Peter is being Charged by our Lord as the leader of the dicsiples and the leader of the Church.

It is evident from the Acts of the Apostles that no one was really pointing to any one particular person other than Jesus for their teaching authority. That is to say, Paul clearly sent others on a mission with no mention of some kind of blessing from Peter. If that part of the keys of the kingdom thing mattered, I would think it would have survived to this day.

Yes and No. Peter is shown as clearly presiding in several passages, but not so much as a “Lord”, but as a “first among equals”. This fits nicely with Jesus adomnisions to His apostles that they are to be the servants of each other.
The other thing to remember is that, in the time of Peter and Paul and the others, the Church was extremely small and spreading th Gospel took presidence. The emphasis was on spreading the Gospel and setting up communities in various cities. One must remember that the Apostles expected Jesus to return, “Any Day”, and certainly before the end of their lives. They really weren’t that concerned with setting up a “heirarchy” or "governmental structure. That came later.
As the Apostles passed away, and the various heresies arose, the bishops saw the need early on to organize and to standardize Scriptural texts and teachings. In order to protect the Truth of the Gospel the Church Structure evolved into the governing structure we have today. This took centuries to evolve.

Also clear is that 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?

Of course over the development of the Church there were disagreements as to how the Church should be structured. This naturally occurred from the earliest times. The Eastern Churches would have been the first to seperate from Rome, (I’m not sure of the timeline) The question we as Christians must answer is whether we accept Jesus Promise to be with the Church and to Guard it. If we do then following the See of Peter makes sense.

At the risk of dramatically oversimplifying, it seems that there is a certain entrenchment that simply prohibits productive dialog. From my (Catholic) perspective, it would seem that if one bought into the idea of a valid and continuing papacy, then intellectual integrity would require becoming Catholic. For someone convinced that the Catholic Church has lost its way, they would seem to have to deny the validity of the papcy.

You are exactly right. There is a great deal of entrenchment. Mostly from misunderstandings and historical issues. While we do get a bit testy with each other, , I know that we really just want to help each other find the Truth.

So the whole things seems like a non-starter to me. Yet, my sense is that no one really wants there to be no dialog regarding these issues. Is there a starting point upon which there is agreement?

Mark

The Starting point is that Jesus is Lord. Alleluia

Peace
James

 

[Claudius]

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.

How you can even begin to think that Paul ecliped Peter in authority in the Catholic Church is far beyond my understanding. This is a twisted form of Bible literalism that needs to stop, where people come to crazy conclusions that are not evident in reality. Paul was under Peter. This is clear.

The reason the ROCK is so important, and believe me it is of huge importance, is that Jesus gave his own name to Peter. Jesus Equated himself with the Father in Heaven then he Equated himself with Simon Bar Jona. The implications of this are very clear considering the context that this happens in and the fact that these were Semitic people speaking a Semitic langauge.

Then we have the prophacy in Daniel. In the prophecy, a Rock comes down from Heaven (the mountain of God) and turns into a huge mountian on the Earth and covers everything. This is the ultimate mission of the Catholic Church and no other Christian body or religion can accomplish this because it has been set by God that the Catholic Church should fulfill this prophecy. This prophecy is one of the very reasons for the very existance of the Catholic Church to begin with. This prophecy is not talking about a confession of Faith or some secret invisible mountian. It is a MOUNTIAN sent by GOD. The prophecy is also not talking about all “christians” together. It is talking about the Catholic Church and ONLY the Catholic Church. If we loose the Pope, then our status as the MOUNTIAN sent by God goes away. The Pope is a nessesary part of God’s plan of salvation because GOD has decreed it so and Humans are in no place to question Him who Is “Blessed be His Name”.

In any event, Catholics need to take with a huge grain of salt any comments on this coming from protestants since they usually don’t have any original facts that they didn’t get from anti-Catholic websites or preachers. I still have yet to meet a protestant who was fluent in Syriac or Latin or who had more then just a litterate level of knowledge of Greek.

We also need to look at the fact that the people who speak Syriac as their Native Language are overwhelmingly Catholic even though they live in countries where being a Catholic gets your head cut off, as the recent violence in Lebanon shows. If you go ask a Maronite why they are Catholic and it is a No Brainer, Jesus Means What He Says. Please note the use of the Present tense and not a past tense. The Commands of Jesus are still pressing even for today as Jesus is still with us. So everyone please, Stop Sinning, since Jesus very earnestly tells us so.

 

[Nino]

Jesus was of course a carpenter and a mason…thats why He used so many phrases in those professions as metaphors…Rock being a foundation…building on sand is trouble for the house supports start to sink,tilting takes place,no real basement is possible and vermin take to sand to live in and tunnell thru! Choosing the metaphor of ‘Rock" for Peter,the First Pope was just beautiful and sooooo clear to those who really want the Truth.We have to remember that the protestant revolt was led in most incidences by the wealthy ruling class.they confiscated huge amounts of church land,churchs and riches’…ie silver and gold chalices,oil paintings and acres of land…remember it was in 1870 that the Marxists captured Italy and stole a million acres of land from the Papacy…leaving the Vatican with but 106 …so add this to other countries like England,Germany etc and the looters thus had to brainwash their off spring that the Romans had to go and all of the silver and gold etc was shipped back to Rome…yeh sure…one can imagine how the people felt returning to a once lovely church now bare and empty…sad…

 

[Claudius]

The appropriate Aramaic word for that is shu’a, not kepha. Aside from numerous transational references regarding scripture, we can be further certain that it was a shu’a Christ intended to build his church on.

However, if a Roman Catholic would like to explain why shu’a/sela/petra (large massive rock) is fitting for a wise man to build his house on, but Christ uses only a kepha for his very own church, I’d really like to hear it. Noone has in the past taken up this argument, but I really hope that someone will.

Although I was raised thinking that Roman Catholicism was wrong, my greatest rejection of its teachings has come from better understanding them.

No, because I’ve seen many Protestant authors who do. More interesting to me is why Roman Catholics swing the same set of quotes around, over and over, and ignore any challenges/responses that come against them.

One, The word used by Jesus in both the parable of the wise man and the foundation of the Church is Kepa. Jesus is refered to as a Kepa as well before either of these takes place. How do we know? Because it is written down for us and we can go and read it and understand it as long as we are not blinded by being raised by Anti-Catholic bigots.

The word Shu^a was also used in some instances but only as a synanym of Kepa. You are trying to force your prejudgments about lies concerning the Greek langauge that you want to use onto Syriac and it just falls flat to anyone who actually knows this language, which I take it you don’t.

The reason Jesus established His Church on a Kepa is because this word means “unmovable” rock. It is also a clear connection to the prophecy in Daniel about the Rock from Heaven that starts small (though Kepa does not mean small rock at all) but eventually becomes a huge mountian that covers the entire Earth, subjecting all mankind to God. This is the ultimate future of the Catholic Church ordained by God.

Catholics do not ignore objections, but lets be real, all the protestants objections to date, including yours, are of not consequence in reality. The reality of life is that God established the Catholic Church and that Church is built upon the Rock. That Rock is Lord Jesus blessed by His name and that Name was given to Peter to establish the course that the Church would have to follow.

You saying that Catholics just ignore does not take into account the reasonableness of your objections. Your objections to Catholic doctrine is similar to a student in school insisting to his teacher that two plus two is really five. The teacher explains that no in fact, two plus two is four and can never be five. The student then says again that two plus two is five and the teacher stops waisting his time on him.

Catholics have heard and have already responded most adequetly to every single objection posed to us. We have proven beyond all reasonableness and logic that We are the One Church established by God and that only We can fullfil the mission to subject all the Earth to his will. No, we are not going to sit hear and explain the same set of facts to you over and over and over gain because all the information is availiable to you and it is you who is being unreasonable and prejudiced by not looking at it.

Protestants basically act like this. Teacher says that two plus two is four. Student insist that two plus two is five and denounces the teacher for not accepting this New Think truth. The teacher again insist that two pluse two is in fact four and the student then amends his answer to say that two plus two equals “all Catholics are going to Hell because I just want to win”.

You need to seriously re-evaluate what you think you know about the Catholic Church and get the real facts. You have rejected the Catholic Church based on blind prejudice and not reason or logic or knowing anything about us at all. Rejecting the Catholic Church is like Rejecting Christ. It is also like rejecting the Holy Spirit and it is in fact a SIN. STOP SINNING.