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

[mercygate]

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

I am surprised that you would write this, since the “strengthen your brethren” and John 21 passages also weigh in on this. The idea that Peter would not have successors goes to the whole matter of Apostolic Succession as well. And I know you do not quarrel with that. Further, the Petrine primacy is a point of connection for Our Lord’s prayer that “they all might be one.”

This isn’t really a matter of Mt. 16:18 as a stand-alone verse.

 

[Claudius]

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

Another point that must be brought to mind is the idea of symbol versus reality. Protestants think is symbols but Catholics live in the real world. As such, it is understandable that protestants would call the most Holy Eucharist “just a symbol” and indeed they speak the truth for their own churches as they do not have the authority or blessings needed to do it in reality. But they lie when they claim the same of a Catholic Mass. The Catholic Mass is the only worship that is pleasing to God.

So my protestant friend, you have before you the pinicle of Catholic docrine. All other doctrine is not nearly so important as this one. This doctrine supports and holds up all other doctrines including Peter as the Rock. You admit that live outside of the communion of the True Sacrement. What does that say about you? Without the Eucharist, I can fully understand why Christianity makes no sense to you and why you have to reject it. But let us be clear about what we are talking about. When you reject the Catholic Church, you are rejecting the Gospel of Lord Jesus, blessed by His Name, and the Holy Spirit. You are not just rejecting the Catholic Church, but all the is truly Christianity. You reject the Heart and all the blood that comes from it but want a connection to the Head.

Although I do not see any clear signs of it in your post here, the very style that you use suggest to me that you have deep malice for our Lord because you recent Him for placing a Church over you to guide you onto the correct path. Protestant theology leads souls away from Christ, not to Him. I will now encourage you with all the care that I can make come across in this medium to amend your way and seek the Truth of Lord Jesus. I have great concern for your soul.

First you must realize that Jesus is not just an idea, or a message or a Character in a story. He is REAL and PHYSICAL and present to us even now. He is also Lord, King, Master of all the universerse. He is not to be simply prayed to but WHORSHIPED. He is GOD. He is the Word of God and the Bible, no matter how vernerable can never replace Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus is your teacher, your example. By His words you will live and outside His Church you will die.

I would now ask you to pray the psalms. Three at a time, four at a time, whatever you can handle. Submit yourself in prayer to Jesus using the psalms and if God should deem you to bless you with true faith, then please seek out a priest so that you can be baptized and have Lord Jesus take your sins away. Let the One True Church show you how to follow the Path laid out by Lord Jesus to end your days of sinning and to sin no more.

Sinning increases the suffering of all the world and only by repentace and reconsiliation can we ever begin to make amends for the wrongs we have done. Lord Jesus gave us the tools we need in order to do just this, by accepting his saving work into our hearts and transforming our lives to live as he commands of us. Not one letter of the Law shall fall away. We must learn how to keep the Law, the true Law that comes from Lord Jesus, perfectly. This is commanded of us By Jesus and he shows us exaclty how we are to do it. One way is by accepting the Authority of the Rock, Peter and in our current days Pope Benedict XVI, to lead us and always guide us with words from the Father. The Pope is part of God’s Plan but even more so is the Eucharist. Rejecting These is to selfexclude yourself out of Christianity.

Please, allow yourself to follow God’s plan for you and come to be welcomed into the community of Christians who serve and worship God in truth.

 

[SJMV]

I came across this thread through an email, and though I don’t usually post on such things, certain things are kind of forcing my hand here. So, where to begin?

First off, the title of the thread “How can people believe Peter is the rock but still not be Catholic?” begins with a premise that is generally untrue. Most non-Catholics do not believe that Peter is the rock. Though we can argue about the meaning of the particular verse in question for years, one side will always say that Christ was referring to Peter as the Rock and the other will say that He was not. I think that there is sufficient evidence throughout Scripture which suggests that “the rock” is Christ or faith in Him, not Peter. In I Cor 10:4, Paul says unequivocally that Christ is the Rock, and in I Peter 2:5, Peter himself refers to all Christians as “living stones.” That St. James presided over the Jerusalem Council, that Paul felt comfortable in challenging Peter, or that Luke in the Acts of the Apostles nor Paul not Peter not any other individual ever mentions a sort of supreme authority in Peter and his successors is just some of the evidence to show that the Apostles themselves had no understanding of Peter that equals how Catholics view the pope today.

As for the early Church, the author of “The Myth of Papal Infallibility” found that, of 85 Church Fathers and other figures:
8 held that the “rock” was the college of the apostles which Peter represented
44 believed that the “rock” was the faith which Peter confessed, i.e. “Thou are Christ…”
16 taught that the “Rock” was Jesus Christ Himself
17 proclaimed that the “Rock” was Peter as a representative of the entire group of believers, the first Christians, or the Church

Not a single one states that the Rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors. Even past popes have stated such things as this quote from Pope Hadrian VI (1522-1525): “A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, not official capacity.”

Along with the Fathers, one simply needs to look at Church History as a whole. In the first 1000 years of Christianity, did the Church ever truly act as though it had an infallible authority toward whom to look in times of heresy and trouble? Never! Councils were called, both local and Ecumenical; opinions were sought, both of the bishop of Rome and others. Popes were challenged, even rebuked.

Of contemporary opinions, Fr. John Neuhaus spoke on Firing Line on Dec. 10, 1987. Speaking of a particular Cardinal’s opinion, he quoted this cardinal as saying “Infallibility is a very late concept in Roman Catholic teaching,” further stating that this cardinal was “uneasy” about the doctrine. That cardinal: Joseph Ratzinger, today known as Pope Benedict XVI.

Though there is a great deal more that could be written, let me end with this: “Claudius” has stated that those who go against the Pope sin against the Catholic Church and thus against Christ. Others have made general remarks about Protestants and their illogical, anti-historic approach. I am not a Catholic, nor am I Protestant. I am an Orthodox Christian, and the Spirit of God has certainly not left those who go against the pope and his claims to universal authority. Look up and read the lives of St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, St. John of Shanghai and San Francisco, Elder Joseph the Hesychast, St. Justin Popovich, Elder Cleopa of Sihastria and the many, many other contemporary saints of the Orthodox Church. Are they without Christ in their hearts? Are some - such as St. Justin Popovich who wrote very harshly against the institution of the papacy and yet has flashes of Divine Light emanate from his grave - not granted Paradise? Has the Orthodox Church fallen apart without a single, earthly head, or has it remained more devoted to Tradition than the Roman church?

If Christ instituted a universal and infallible head of authority in the Church, then I wonder why He did not state so clearly, nor did his Apostles (including Peter), nor the Church Fathers… all the while, Christ was and continues also to glorify those with the Holy Spirit who rejected and denounced that head. In all seriousness, read the lives and writings of some of the saints above, and others. They have been glorified by God with spiritual gifts, with miracles, with virtues, with true humility and love, and in the case of St. John of San Francisco, with incorruption of his relics, yet they rejected the papacy. Why, we must ask, is that?

 

[Contarini]

I am surprised that you would write this, since the “strengthen your brethren” and John 21 passages also weigh in on this. The idea that Peter would not have successors goes to the whole matter of Apostolic Succession as well. And I know you do not quarrel with that. Further, the Petrine primacy is a point of connection for Our Lord’s prayer that “they all might be one.”

This isn’t really a matter of Mt. 16:18 as a stand-alone verse.

Yes, it is, because that’s the point of the OP. The OP is claiming that if you think Peter is the rock, full acceptance of the papal claims must follow.

And to SJMV: again, the OP is addressed to people who do think Peter is the rock.

Edwin

 

[mercygate]

Yes, it is, because that’s the point of the OP. The OP is claiming that if you think Peter is the rock, full acceptance of the papal claims must follow.

Edwin

Point taken.

 

[Gofer]

As for the early Church, the author of “The Myth of Papal Infallibility” found that, of 85 Church Fathers and other figures:
8 held that the “rock” was the college of the apostles which Peter represented
44 believed that the “rock” was the faith which Peter confessed, i.e. “Thou are Christ…”
16 taught that the “Rock” was Jesus Christ Himself
17 proclaimed that the “Rock” was Peter as a representative of the entire group of believers, the first Christians, or the Church

Not a single one states that the Rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors.

As usual, you lot do not recognize that some professed more than one interpretation, very much including “the Rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors.”

 

[PC_Master]

Wow – lots of replies. Here goes the first set…

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?

The problem is – the grammar is precisely the issue. Interpreted in one way, Jesus was referring to Simon-Peter as the rock on which the church was to be built. A slightly different interpretation has Jesus contrasting Peter against the rock on which the church will be built.

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.

Correct. Paul appeals to his apostolic authority in (nearly?) every letter we have of his, and yet he never refers this in context of approval by the apostles. He’s always “An apostle of Jesus Christ”, not “An apostle of the one true church of Christ” or “An apostle sent by the twelve”, etc. So, if Christ really did mean that Peter was the rock in Matthew 16, he clearly wasn’t referring to a church hierarchy.

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.

This is what spawned the OP here – how can people hold that Peter is the rock, and yet reject the RCC? The answers ot that have been given. The simple fact is that believing Peter was the rock in Matthew 16 is not the same as believing in the successors of Peter holding the same stature.

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?

I’m not sure that there is.

Do not be befuddled by words, it is the non-Catholics’ greastest tactic. Confusion, Obfuscation, those are their tools.

Everything I explained above was rather simple, and makes a lot more sense in my opinion than trying to insist that two different Greek words (which have contemporary literary use to indicate they were indeed different) were actually represented by the same word in the original spoken Aramaic.

If you’d like to address why Christ would say the wise man builds his house on a Shu’a in Matthew 7 (check the Syriac Peshitta, which is, as I recall, the oldest Aramaic translation known to still exist), yet would build his church on anything less, I’d love to hear it.

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.

Actually, most who follow this line of interpretation probably don’t interpret it as Peter’s faith as a whole (for that faith wavers moments later), but rather specifically as Peter’s confession that “you are the Christ, the son of God”. Since we’re speaking metaphorically of a foundational “rock”, we could see it as a foundational principle – that Jesus is the Christ, the son of God. That can indeed be the basis on which all of Chrsitendom is built.

Non-catholics simply cannot interpret scripture as a whole on this issue and maintain any intellectual honesty, lest they be compelled to conversion.

This is patently false. In fact, the more I look at scripture as a whole, especially on the issue of the foundation of the church and the issue of leadership, the more convinced I am that the RCC has got it wrong.

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.

First…what’s convoluted about it? Your view is the one that says petros and petra must be the same thing, and argues the semantics of Greek grammar, while at the same time rejecting the much more reasonable view which considers petros as a separate word, despite literary evidence to support it.

Second, the Roman Catholic position as a whole is no more complex than mine.

You say – petros and petra are the same because the underlying Aramaic was kepha/kepha.
I say – petros and petra are different because the underlying Aramaic was kepha/shu’a.

The difference? I actually provide support for defining petra and shu’a differently, where you provide no evidence whatsoever to support petra being rendered kepha in this case.

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…

We had a long thread on this before, but the gist is this – if you’re talking about unity of belief, then even the RCC doesn’t have that either. Any time you have multiple people, you’ll have disunity in something.

Also, notice that Jesus prayed for this to happen – he didn’t say that it would. Christ himself said that his purpose was to save the world, and yet we know that the whole world will not be saved. The signs of the benevolent will of our creator should not be taken as promises of things which will happen, unless he actually said they will happen.

The only possible way to have unity in any body, any assembly, is to have one, authoritative voice.

I have yet to meet any two Roman Catholics who agree 100% on matters of faith. If you find two such people, let me know, and we can call them united, and add from there. Meanwhile, I’ll look at this forum, with dozens of differing opinions on praying to saints/Mary, papal infallibility, church infallibility, and numerous other doctrines…all of which call themselves “Catholic”. Not very united at all.

This is what the poor souls of your ilk refuse to do.

Charity, charity!

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.

Amen to that.

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?

I’d wager that the most obvious conclusion to the casual Greek reader of the era is that petros and petra, though similar, were different words with somewhat different meanings, especially since there’s literary use to indicate that. Also, if you take into context the site of the conversation, it’s hard to think that they’d be near the massive rock foundation of Caesarea Philippi and that Christ would use petra without referring to this.

While we do get a bit testy with each other, , I know that we really just want to help each other find the Truth.

While I hope that’s true, there are certain posters on this forum who make me think they’re here to hone their apologetics’ skills and/or defend the RCC from attack by “stupid Protestants”. I can only hope my posts don’t come across in a similarly blind fashion.

The Starting point is that Jesus is Lord. Alleluia

Amen to that. I guess we can also agree that he rose from the dead after crucifixion, and is no longer present (physically) on the earth. Perhaps we can even agree that he instituted (in some fashion), a church and intended for us to gather together to strengthen each other in our faith?

How you can even begin to think that Paul ecliped Peter in authority in the Catholic Church is far beyond my understanding.

Simple – one simply rejects the assertion that Peter was a pope, or that he acted as one.

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.

Interesting that God isn’t usually a keph or kepha in scripture. He’s usually a shua/sela (rendered petra in Greek) – check out the Septuagint (Greek translation of the Hebrew scriptures). God is a mountain, a strong tower, a firm foundation – not simply a stone.

Also, when Christ is referred to as a stone, he’s not just a stone, for even the apostles and prophets were stones in the foundation of the building – Christ, however, was the corner stone. So, God/Jesus was a firm foundation, a mountain, a rocky fortress, a solid rock, or the corner stone (the most important stone in the foundation of a building). Peter was simply “a stone”.

Hypothetically, if I took you to the site of a mountain , and said to you “You are a rock”, and then pointed up at the mountain and said “but on this mountain, this crag, this bedrock I will build my church,” – would you try to argue that rock and mountain meant the same and were referring to the same thing? I realize we don’t know where Jesus pointed, if anywhere – it’s just a bit of emphasis to show what I think Christ was saying.

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.

So, we know the RCC is the church appointed by God because it fulfills the prophecy? Wait, no – you said that only the RCC can fulfill the prophecy because it is the church appointed by God. This is called circular logic, and it really doesn’t help the conversation.

This prophecy is not talking about a confession of Faith or some secret invisible mountian. It is a MOUNTIAN sent by GOD.

So, we’re talking about a literal mountain, made of rock, right? I think you’re saying it’s figurative, but somehow a figurative mountain must represent the RCC, and can’t represent anything else.

The prophecy is also not talking about all “christians” together. It is talking about the Catholic Church and ONLY the Catholic Church.

And how do you establish this claim as fact?

The Pope is a nessesary part of God’s plan of salvation because GOD has decreed it so…

And we know this because?

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.

While it’s true I got my material from several sources, some of it comes from personal study, and I certainly have never seen it assembled in such a way before. On the contrary, I would cite most Roman Catholic responses as simply regurgitating canned answers, which is all well and good until those are defeated, such as is the case on the petros/petra issue. At that point, most Roman Catholics just say nothing further, and ignore the point.

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.

I’ve met one or two (I’m certainly not – I do the best I can with the information I have). Then again, I don’t know many Roman Catholics (here or elsewhere) who are fluent in Syriac, Latin, Greek or Hebrew. That doesn’t stop them from slinging around canned responses.

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…

This is simply unfactual as far as I’m aware. I know of no country where the majority of native Syriac speakers are Roman Catholic.

More to come…

 

[PC_Master]

One, The word used by Jesus in both the parable of the wise man and the foundation of the Church is Kepa.

Are we looking at the same passages? Matthew 7:24 and Luke 6:48 both use shua, not kepha. Granted, this is from the Peshitta which is not actually an original version, but rather a back-translation from the Greek, but still, it seems very straightforward.

Jesus is refered to as a Kepa as well before either of these takes place.

The only place I’m aware of this is where he’s the stone the builders rejected that has become the chief corner stone, where the literary use of a smaller stone makes sense.

The word Shu^a was also used in some instances but only as a synanym of Kepa.

What? Where do you get this from? That’s like saying stone and mountain are English synonyms – simply untrue.

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.

Admittedly I don’t, but I suspect you don’t either.

The reason Jesus established His Church on a Kepa is because this word means “unmovable” rock.

It does? What gives you that idea? How about John 11:39 – kepha is used to refer to the stone that covered a tomb, which they “took away”. That seems rather movable to me.

You have rejected the Catholic Church based on blind prejudice and not reason or logic or knowing anything about us at all.

Seems to me that you’re the one making claims based on not knowing things. Kepha is not unmovable rock. The rock on which the wise man builds his house is not kepha either. I know of no reason to believe kepha and shua are synonymous. All of these are claims that you’ve made, which are simply false when compared to the most basic logic.

Another point that must be brought to mind is the idea of symbol versus reality. Protestants think is symbols but Catholics live in the real world.

So Jesus never spoke symbolically?

The Catholic Mass is the only worship that is pleasing to God.

So God performs miracles in Orthodox and Protestant churches even though their rituals are not the same?

Without the Eucharist, I can fully understand why Christianity makes no sense to you and why you have to reject it.

Woah there – I never said Christianity makes no sense to me. I also do not reject it. There’s a difference between Christianity and Roman Catholicism, however.

Although I do not see any clear signs of it in your post here, the very style that you use suggest to me that you have deep malice for our Lord because you recent Him for placing a Church over you to guide you onto the correct path.

I have no malice toward God. I’m really not sure what led you to think that. Should I say that you have malice toward God because you don’t agree with my beliefs? At the very best, it’s uncharitable. But think about it – if I hated God, don’t you think I’d embrace atheism or something like that? Why would I go so far to understand scripture and church history if I had something against God?

Protestant theology leads souls away from Christ, not to Him.

This is one of many baseless assertions you’ve made that doesn’t help the conversation. Please contribute something that will further the discussion rather than bring it to a halt.

I have great concern for your soul.

Good – if you want to help me, you should pray, not for me to find the RCC, but for me to find the truth, whatever it may be. Doing otherwise means that you believe yourself infallible. If you think you might be fallible, then there is at least a small possibility that your beliefs of the RCC are wrong. Now, would you really want your prayers to help me get into something that’s wrong?

Instead, rely on God to provide the truth, whatever it may be, to me. That’s what I do. God won’t mess up, but we, as humans, just might.

First you must realize that Jesus is not just an idea, or a message or a Character in a story. He is REAL and PHYSICAL and present to us even now. He is also Lord, King, Master of all the universerse.

Where did you get the idea that I doubted this? Why would I be here at all, discussing what Christ actually meant, if I didn’t believe he was real?

He is GOD. He is the Word of God and the Bible, no matter how vernerable can never replace Lord Jesus. Lord Jesus is your teacher, your example.

So far, so good.

By His words you will live and outside His Church you will die.

Now see, this seemingly-subtle bit is a huge theological point. You’re equating the RCC with “the words of God”. This is where I disagree.

Yes, it is, because that’s the point of the OP. The OP is claiming that if you think Peter is the rock, full acceptance of the papal claims must follow.

Yes – this is a flaw that most Roman Catholics seem to embrace.

As usual, you lot do not recognize that some professed more than one interpretation, very much including “the Rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors.”

I don’t recall ever seeing such a quote saying “the rock is Peter, the bishop of Rome, and his successors” or anything quite so explicit. Care to show us where that is?

More importantly – which ECFs is it that you’re saying espoused more than one position, and which groups in the cited book did they fall into? Actually, why don’t you just give a list of all those who said Peter himself was the rock. We can count those and compare. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

More importantly – which ECFs is it that you’re saying espoused more than one position, and which groups in the cited book did they fall into? Actually, why don’t you just give a list of all those who said Peter himself was the rock.

Why don’t we just begin with all of the Protestant scholars who have stated that Peter is the rock?

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann
“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)
“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

John Broadus (Nineteenth-Century Calvinistic Baptist)
“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

Craig L. Blomberg (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].

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)
“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

—

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)
“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

R.T. France (Anglican)
“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied…Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

William Hendriksen (Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary)
“The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew [Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973], page 647JPK page 14]

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)
“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)
“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

Herman Ridderbos (Contemporary Dutch Reformed)
“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

+++

Of course, Jesus did not speak Greek but Aramaic. Therefore, the words that Jesus actually spoke would be more accurately translated, “You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my church.” The confusion over the masculine and feminine forms of the Greek petros and petra would not occur in Aramaic. We can see the use of the Greek form of Simon’s new name, Cephas, in several verses. Even Paul, the favorite Apostle of Protestants, called Peter “Cephas” in several of his letters which indicates that even Paul understood that Peter was the rock upon which the Church was founded. If not, he would have referred to Peter as “Simon” instead.

For the Protestant Reformers to rationalize breaking away from what was universally acknowledged in their culture as the Christian Church, it was necessary for them to deny the Catholic Church’s authority. To explain their new ecclesiology, they were forced to portray Rome as a kind of “anti-Church” that was unjustly claiming the prerogatives of Christ’s true (but invisible) Church.

Their chief target was, of course, the pope. To justify breaking away from the successor of Peter, they had to undercut the Petrine office itself. They were forced to deny the plain reading of Matthew 16:18—that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[Pons]

Gofer, LOL for Simpsons but boo for approach.

2 cents: For St. John Chrysostom, Peter was “the foundation of the Church”, whom Christ made “stronger than any rock” (while Paul was “the vessel of election”, and he called both coryphaei, leaders - a term also applied to James, Andrew and John, though Peter is the foremost coryphaeus). Yet Chrysostom also said the foundation of the church was the faith of Peter’s confession.

Old post, with source linked

 

[po18guy]

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

Because Peter, thinking as man does in this world, desired that Christ avoid suffering and death. This smacks of the demonic, as it would avoid the sacrifice and eternal atonement for sin. That’s what some people say.

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.

Ah, but he travelled to Rome to meet with Peter. Peter is mentioned in the NT 195 times. The closest in John, at 29 times. And John was “the beloved disciple”. The twelve are referred to as “Peter and the others”. Peter is always named first, and judas last. That’s what some people say.

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?

Well, at times in her history, antipopes have been elected, and popes have been taken into custody, effectively in exile. So, you have to consider all of the tribulations the church has suffered when looking for perfection in any such list. Also, it is the office which continues, established by the imposition of hands. Did Christ not say: Matthew 28:18 (New International Version) Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me”?

as well as: Matthew 18:18 “I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Christ, being perfect and incapable of deceit, and all-knowing of past, present and future, gave the Apostles this incredible, never seen before power. He knew what they would do with that power before He gave it to them. Who are you second-guessing here?

These are replies people make.

Is stalking the truth a predatory sport?

 

[po18guy]

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

And you call yourself a “bible Christian”? Please read these points and scripture passages, perhaps for the first time:

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The next closest is John, “the beloved disciple” at 29 times. Peter is always listed first among the Apostles (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19, Lk 6:14-17, Acts 1:13)

Also, you read “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing his position amongst them

Also, Peter was the only Apostle who:

Walked on water (Matthew 14:30) Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus…

Raised the dead: (Acts 9:36-42) In Joppa there was a disciple named Tabitha (which, when translated, is Dorcas), who was always doing good and helping the poor. About that time she became sick and died, and her body was washed and placed in an upstairs room. Lydda was near Joppa; so when the disciples heard that Peter was in Lydda, they sent two men to him and urged him, “Please come at once!” Peter went with them, and when he arrived he was taken upstairs to the room. All the widows stood around him, crying and showing him the robes and other clothing that Dorcas had made while she was still with them. Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive. This became known all over Joppa, and many people believed in the Lord.

Whose healings were individually recorded: Acts 3:3-8 When he saw Peter and John about to enter, he asked them for money. Peter looked straight at him, as did John. Then Peter said, “Look at us!” So the man gave them his attention, expecting to get something from them. Then Peter said, “Silver or gold I do not have, but what I have I give you. In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.” Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong. He jumped to his feet and began to walk. Then he went with them into the temple courts, walking and jumping, and praising God.

Peter was sent to the Gentiles as well as Paul: Acts 15:7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe”

Could this be why Peter was viewed as slightly more than just a face in the crowd?

 

[po18guy]

Was Peter the Bishop of Rome?

Please do not listen to the nay-sayers. YES! He was the first Bishop of Rome, since he went there to preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, as well as to the Jews who resided there in the dispersion. Benedict XVI is the current Bishop of Rome. He can trace his ordination, as can every Catholic priest, back to one of the Twelve Apostles. Confidence.

Christ’s peace.

 

[po18guy]

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

Or they post page-long contortions of logic while taking substantial liberties with both ancient and modern language to postulate a quasi-believable “refutation” containing, when viewed from just the right angle, perhaps the slightest glimmer of plausibility. ANYTHING to avoid becoming Catholic! Stalking the truth is fine, as long as you do not become bitter upon being confronted with it!

If the church was to persist until the end of the age, wouldn’t it do so best in the form in which Christ created it?

 

[MIZER]

PC Master,

You wrote:

Hypothetically, if I took you to the site of a mountain , and said to you “You are a rock”, and then pointed up at the mountain and said “but on this mountain, this crag, this bedrock I will build my church,” – would you try to argue that rock and mountain meant the same and were referring to the same thing? I realize we don’t know where Jesus pointed, if anywhere – it’s just a bit of emphasis to show what I think Christ was saying.

Christ didn’t say “but on this rock.” He said “and on this rock.” There is difference. Do you see the difference?

Also, could you explain the difference in the masculine and feminine form of the Greek words petros and petras? Is this masucline verses feminine usage evident in either aramaic or hebrew?

 

[Frater_Bovious]

Hmmm - well, I hear what you are saying. Let me try to restate what I was saying. My actual point I think was missed, or at least it did not grab your attention. Your response below regarding the grammar issue:

Wow – lots of replies. Here goes the first set…

The problem is – the grammar is precisely the issue. Interpreted in one way, Jesus was referring to Simon-Peter as the rock on which the church was to be built. A slightly different interpretation has Jesus contrasting Peter against the rock on which the church will be built.

I submit the grammar issue is of more concern to us today then it was when this was written. My point was, despite our wrangling over grammar, a hierarchy did in fact come into being. At certain and rather lengthy points in Christian history this hierarchy was not seriously challenged in any substantive and material manner that we can point at until the split between East and West churches.

A hierarchical structure seems to make sense as there needed to be some sort of clearing house to address, at a minimum, teachings which we today call heresies, but which at the time were probably just some guy’s understanding of things as he or she was trying to spread the Word.

The issue becomes, at some point, who is the authoritative expert on the meaning of this or that teaching? Where does this authority come from? How is this authority to be exercised?

If it can be agreed that there was a need for some kind of decision to be made on certain points (divinity of Christ and/or humanity of Christ comes to mind) then the need would have to be addressed in some manner.

Otherwise, the faith could simply splinter into a lot of little opinions and possibly becomes some backwater splinter off of Judaism with lots of little variants all looking to a human personality that has grabbed their attention. Something like this was an issue in the early church, if I read the Acts of the Apostles and Paul’s and John’s letters correctly.

Now, I realize today that we need to grasp the grammar to grasp Christ’s meaning in the peter, rock, etc. statements. Our understanding of the grammar doesn’t change what factually happened however.

Mark, aka Frater Bovious

 

[Contarini]

For someone convinced that the Catholic Church has lost its way, they would seem to have to deny the validity of the papcy.

I agree with the general point of your post as I understand it, and this is a bit off-topic, but it seems to be a point a lot of Catholics don’t get: I and many other moderate Protestants do not claim that the “Catholic Church has lost its way.” We simply are not convinced that the churches in communion with Rome constitute the Catholic Church in all its fullness. We don’t think you are heretics. We just think that you claim more for your particular Communion than is currently the case.

Edwin

 

[centurion210]

Mark’s evaluation is quite correct and points out why sacred Scripture cannot be interpreted Without Sacred Tradition and the magisterium(Peter and the apostles, a.k.a. the Pope and the bishops).

Protestants, look at sacred Scripture as an “instruction manual”. Consequently all they can do is haggle over word definitions etc… They can’t get too deep into church history, because their history only starts from the Reformation. Careful study of the entire Christian history would bring them to the same conclusion expressed by Cardinal Newman that “to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant” or words to that effect.

When I began my spiritual journey, one of the first things that struck me was how many heresies sprang up in the very earliest days of the Church. Knowing this made it quite clear what Paul was referring to when he spoke of false teachings and false prophets. While digesting these things, the very first thing that came to mind was central authority. That’s just rational.

The force of Matthew 16 can easily be appreciated just considering how the Church made it out of the first century. Then when you consider the next 200 years of persecution where virtually every major early church father was martyred, it becomes unfathomable to not see our Lord’s loving hands steering is Visible Church.

It’s obvious that since Jesus never wrote a single word, that he discussed in great detail how this unlikely group of men would shepherd His Church. Even a casual reading of some of the early Church fathers like Ignatius of Antioch points out the strict adherence to structure,and gives a good indication of what the Church looked like. Very early on in my journey I could envision the church developing exactly as it did. Getting deeper into the Church fathers removes any doubt about the authenticity of the Church created by our Lord Jesus.

Just look at Protestantism since the Reformation. Thirty thousand different denominations and the number grows every day. It’s only a matter of time before some “true Christians” pick apart the Trinity (I guess that’s already happened). Who was it that said “without Peter there is no unity”? While it is true that many of our fellow Catholics do not follow church teachings, there can be no doubt about what those teachings are. Can you imagine the Church today without “Peter” ?

I know it’s tempting to want to go “toe to toe” with our Protestant brothers,but Bible quotes are their turf. Why should we let them define the playing field? We are not a church of the Bible; the Bible is of the Church. Again, looking at church history, it’s easy to see WHY the Bible was put together. It is still fascinating to discuss the origin of the Bible with a Protestant; total denial of its origin.

I just pray that individual Protestants will come to see the treasures they choose to deny. What a wonderful gift we have.

Deo Gratius !

 

[MIZER]

dear centurion210

I really appreciated your post. I’ve been arguing with protestants, mostly fundamentalists and baptists for years and I must say it is the most frustrating thing in the world. I truly believe Jesus could stand before them, in the flesh and tell them, “I created one, holy, catholic and apostolic church and I told the world in plain language that my church would be like a net holding both good and bad fish. Do not reject my net because of the stench of the bad fish it may hold in any given era. My church will be the universal church and will maintain, from the day of Pentecost until my return, every single teaching I ever cammanded my apostles to teach. I have blessed these men and their succesors with a special gift of my Spirit so that when you hear them, you will hear me and I will by with them always, so you will know that what they teach about faith and morals is truth, as I am truth.” And the fundamentalists, the protestants, still would not believe. In fact they would say, “No Lord, I don’t believe you created a church like that. Look here Lord, this verse in the Bible could mean something else, so if you don’t mind I think I’ll follow whatever I think this Bible verse means instead of what you are telling me, see ya!” MIND BOGGELING!!!

 

[JRKH]

I had just posted this over on the thread about the Bible being Catholic, and thought it appropriate here too.

It seems to me that, in conversations here, many people, both catholic and Non-catholic fail to realize the significance of the 2000 year history of the Church and it’s teachings. To a certain extent for catholics, we take it for granted, and for non-catholics they don’t seem to be able to get their head around it.

The Catholic Church is sort of like a 2000 year old university. Contained in it are a equally ancient teaching and research facilities. The Charter of this university was given by Christ Himself with the command to teach, to nourish, to reach out to all nations, and to be united in its basic principles of Love for God and for each other.
The Bible is can be likened to the Written Charter. It contains information on the Church’s foundation, it’s mission, its authority, and the basic tenets of teaching that must be adhered to.
In addition to the Bible, many other writings, both contemporary to the NT writings and then following on down through the centuries, have been preserved, studied, researched and used in developing the fuller understandings of Truth that the Church has embraced over time.

For close to 2000 years the various forms of the Magesterium, the councils, and doctrinal bodies have based their research on this rich treasure of Church history and thought. All new ideas and current issues are studied and weighed within the context of this vast and wonderous asset.
We as Catholics simply do not have to constantly return to the Bible or other source documents to try and “re-invent” the Church. We don’t have to constantly try to tease meanings out of scripture. It’s all been done, and it’s been done by people with far more education and insight into the history, languages, cultures, etc of the early Church than most of us could ever aspire to.

The Protestant movement took the Charter away from this wonderous university (the Bible from the Church) and tried to say the Charter is right but the university is wrong. In so doing they threw out everything that had been learned up to that time and tried to start over. But they couldn’t because the Bible, that Charter is designed as a supporting document for a specific university, The Church, not as a stand alone blueprint of learning.

Seperating the Bible from the Church is like taking a high school freshman “Introduction to Physics” book from 1920 and trying to build a Mars rocket using just that book.

Peace
James