How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?

[kleary]

Roady:

And this is a response to Ken who thinks an agnostic is a waste of time. I’m glad that someone didn’t have that attitude with me before I became a Christian.

Roady

I meant it in a fashion that others were trying to argue typical Catholic/Protestant.

Taking into consideration the author of this thread is an Agnostic we should not waste our time arguing that the other Gospels are authentic vs Matthew or not. Maybe I should have made myself more clear. The person must believe that none of the Gospels are authentic as an Agnostic believes that no one can know about God including himself.

People are replying not as to an Agnostic here but to a fellow Christian who is not Catholic.

Ken

 

[Liberian]

askeptic:

If Jesus really did establish a Church upon Peter, don’t you find it very curious that both Mark and Luke omit this crucial fact?%between%

A Skeptic,

It wasn’t a “crucial fact” until about 1500 years later when the Protestants started looking for reasons to support their rebellion. Everybody knew that Jesus had founded the Church on Peter and that Peter was the first pope. Simply, nobody had raised the issue.

• Liberian

 

[Roady]

kleary:

I meant it in a fashion that others were trying to argue typical Catholic/Protestant.

Taking into consideration the author of this thread is an Agnostic we should not waste our time arguing that the other Gospels are authentic vs Matthew or not. Maybe I should have made myself more clear. The person must believe that none of the Gospels are authentic as an Agnostic believes that no one can know about God including himself.

People are replying not as to an Agnostic here but to a fellow Christian who is not Catholic.

Ken

Ken, you are kind to explain what you meant…this is what I get for butting in too quickly.

From experience, I am learning to let the Scriptures speak for themselves. No one is going to be able to prove them to someone else. I am satisfied that it has proven themselves to me. I’ve found that this is the way that God works…mysteriously and personally.

Roady

 

[VociMike]

BrianH:

I will use the same argument you guys use against Sola Scripture. The Bible does not teach innerancy…does it?
BH

The bible is not the entire deposit of faith.

 

[VociMike]

mercygate:

Since neither Mark nor Luke were present at Caesarea Philippi, but Matthew was, this does not seem to be a damning omission.

Is Matthew the inspired and inerrant Word of God, or isn’t it?

That is the one and only question at hand. If it is, case closed. If it isn’t, we’ve got much bigger problems than one story in one gospel account.

 

[BrianH]

VociMike:

The bible is not the entire deposit of faith.

I agree, I think that verifiable tradition that goes back to Christ and his apostles and the guidance of the Comforter are vital as well.
BH

 

[vern_humphrey]

VociMike:

That is the one and only question at hand. If it is, case closed. If it isn’t, we’ve got much bigger problems than one story in one gospel account.

Exactly!

That’s the bottom line. Those who argue against Matthew are arguing against the whole Bible – because if one book is in error, all are suspect.

 

[adrift]

Roady:

Ok, so your name is Adrift…bear with me, I’m new at this kind of posting.

This should be easy to clarify because I don’t have to go too far back to my original posting. I said that I agreed with Catholics that Jesus built his church upon Peter. But that the true and valid church is built upon Christ. That if a Mormon came on this forum and claimed that his church was also built upon a man, everyone would speak out against the notion. Therefore, since the Catholic church is built upon a man and his successors, then so be it. Because the true church that Christ built is upon none other than Christ, the Rock.

Mr. Mercy responded by asking if the church could be built upon two rocks, being Christ and Peter. I responsed to his response with:

No, that’s not in the text and it is against church teaching.

Roady

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

I said that I agreed with Catholics that Jesus built his church upon Peter. But that the true and valid church is built upon Christ

You say that if a Mormon said That if a Mormon came on this forum and claimed that his church was also built upon a man, everyone would speak out against the notion. NOT if Jesus said it.

 

[Aquarius]

vern humphrey:

Exactly!

That’s the bottom line. Those who argue against Matthew are arguing against the whole Bible – because if one book is in error, all are suspect.

Should we hesitate to question because we fear the implications of the answers?

 

[vern_humphrey]

adrift:

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

You say that if a Mormon said That if a Mormon came on this forum and claimed that his church was also built upon a man, everyone would speak out against the notion. NOT if Jesus said it.

And say it, He did:

17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

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

Matthew 16, 17-19

 

[Roady]

adrift:

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

Hello again, Adrift.

What is the confusion…the true and valid church is not the catholic church. Why? Because it is built upon a man named Peter and his successors. I don’t argue this point among catholics because it is official teaching.

What Jesus meant was that He will build His church upon Himself.

Roady

 

[super64]

askeptic,
I hope you have an answer. It would seem that things are getting off track a bit. Our beliefs do not come from Peter, they are based on what Jesus taught and administered thru the Apostles(Peter being the first leader of the Church). The physical church is built over the remains of Peter.

Peace,
Scott

 

[adrift]

Roady:

adrift:

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

Hello again, Adrift.

What is the confusion…the true and valid church is not the catholic church. Why? Because it is built upon a man named Peter and his successors. I don’t argue this point among catholics because it is official teaching.

What Jesus meant was that He will build His church upon Himself.

Roady

   Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

17
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”"

So Jesus meant himself?

He changes Simon’s name to Peter which means rock and says He is building His Church on this rock and then Jesus gives the newly named Peter (rock) the keys which is giving him power but he really means Himself

You don’t know much about the Church Jesus is the foundation and head of the Church and Jesus chose to make Peter the earthly leader of His Church.

 

[MarySon]

Roady:

adrift:

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

Hello again, Adrift.

What is the confusion…the true and valid church is not the catholic church. Why? Because it is built upon a man named Peter and his successors. I don’t argue this point among catholics because it is official teaching.

What Jesus meant was that He will build His church upon Himself.

Roady

OK, Now I am really confused. Looking one more time on Mt 16:18, I do not see what you just stated, namely that Christ would built church upon Himself. (unless there is something like, somewhere elset in the Bible, I would like to see it). Christ explicitly stated that <<And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it >>. So Christ builds His church upon Simon, who He calls Peter. This passage does not say that Christ will built a church upon Himself.
Also, remember the story of Abram. God changed his name to Abraham to signify that he had a very significant mission ahead of him.

 

[Roady]

super64:

askeptic,
I hope you have an answer. It would seem that things are getting off track a bit. Our beliefs do not come from Peter, they are based on what Jesus taught and administered thru the Apostles(Peter being the first leader of the Church). The physical church is built over the remains of Peter.

Peace,
Scott

Hello to Scott…Roady here…of course your beliefs come from Peter and his successors. This is why the C church thinks it has the authority for new revelations under the doctrine of papal infallibility and Holy Tradition.

 

[Tonks40]

Roady:

adrift:

Thank you for your response but I am still confused. What do you say that Jesus meant? Your statement seams contradictory.

Hello again, Adrift.

What is the confusion…the true and valid church is not the catholic church. Why? Because it is built upon a man named Peter and his successors. I don’t argue this point among catholics because it is official teaching.

What Jesus meant was that He will build His church upon Himself.

Roady

Roady,
Why as the One who is God and became man be excluded from passing on His teachings to another man? It’s like a person who builds up a business. The business becomes very successful. The person comes up to retirement soon, so he decides to pass the business on to another.

The way you’re saying things, you feel that Christ is exempt from doing that? He is the Son of God - he needed to insure that his teachings continue, not in the ways that be misconstrued by an outsider, but by one who knew Him intimately enough to continue teaching it correctly.

Peace.

 

[Roady]

Tonks40:

Roady:

Roady,
Why as the One who is God and became man be excluded from passing on His teachings to another man? It’s like a person who builds up a business. The business becomes very successful. The person comes up to retirement soon, so he decides to pass the business on to another.

The way you’re saying things, you feel that Christ is exempt

from doing that? He is the Son of God - he needed to insure that his teachings continue, not in the ways that be misconstrued by an outsider, but by one who knew Him intimately enough to continue teaching it correctly.

Peace.

Greetings Tonks 40 and also to Maryson.

Appreciate your responses. I do not believe that this is an issue of Jesus passing on His teachings to others. In fact, I agree completely and we only need to look at Paul to see evidence that Jesus passed on his teachings.

The issue of whom the church was built on is a non issue. This will always be a point of contention between those who believe “this Rock” is Christ or Peter. I believe that the true church is built upon Christ. I don’t see how anyone who holds to that could possibly be criticized or condemned. But believe me, I have been many times. This view does not take away Peter’s position in the churches, nor does it take away that he was a great man of faith. But the church that does not move or shake in it’s foundation is built upon Christ, and not a man.

In fact, if we would take our concordances and count the times that Rock is used as a figurative for God, there would be no mistake that “Christ is that Rock”

IF you all continue to believe that the LORD built the church on Peter, etal then you must learn to accept other faiths which are also built on a man.

Roady

 

[askeptic]

kleary:

No. Because the totality of Divine Revelation is not in Scripture alone. There were 7 other eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said that were not written down. Matthew 16:18 is just one piece of evidence in a laundry list of proof!

Ken

Just what is this evidence? Are there any other passages in the Bible that say Jesus established the Church upon Peter?

What does Paul have to say? (By the way, Pauline letters were written before the gospels, starting around 50AD)

 

[askeptic]

Hildebrand:

Welcome to Catholic Answers! :tiphat:

Matthew’s gospel includes it because the Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. They would rightly understand what those texts mean.

The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles.

The Gospel of Mark was written for (Greek-speaking) Romans.

The terms “bind & loose” were used for the Jewish High Priest. “Keys” in the Old Testament represented authority. There are many, many threads on these topics. The search function comes in handy.

I don’t think this is an adequate answer. Isn’t it equally as important to the Gentiles to know that God founded an actual Church? Doesn’t the Church claim that Peter was the Bishop of Rome? If so, isn’t it even more important for the Romans to hear that Peter is the “rock” upon which the Church was built?

 

[askeptic]

mercygate:

Since neither Mark nor Luke were present at Caesarea Philippi, but Matthew was, this does not seem to be a damning omission.

Is Matthew the inspired and inerrant Word of God, or isn’t it?

What makes you think that Matthew was present whereas the others were not? If Matthew was present, why does he borrow so much from Mark?