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

[askeptic]

VociMike:

An element of the deposit of faith does not somehow become more important or more believable when it is mentioned in more than one gospel. The deposit of faith, including the nature and authority of the Church, was given to the Church. The Church did not need to discover that nature and authority in the scriptures.

I disagree. What if only one gospel mentioned the crucifixion?

If God actually became man, if God actually founded a Church with the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”, then in my opinion it is far too important to leave out. Plus, the other gospel writers were already bothering to write about the event when Jesus supposedly said that. A few extra sentences would have included what was one of the key things Jesus did on earth.

Without this, what evidence do we have that God ever founded a Church? Maybe he wanted us all to be protestants?

 

[Roady]

askeptic:

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?

So you are askeptic…Roady here…you ask a good question.
It is typical of unbelievers and even those who profess Christ to cast doubt on the inspiration of Scripture.

Matthew did not borrow from Mark. Because the Bible says that holy men did not write the Scripture from their own private interpretations, but wrote as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. When anyone can grasp this truth, they begin to look at the Scriptures in a different light.

Roady

 

[askeptic]

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.

Perhaps all books are suspect. Perhaps the Bible is not the word of God.

Perhaps there is a God who speaks to us through our reason and moral conscience, not revelation. Perhaps religion is “the word of God” only insofar as it is the effort of human beings to reach for God.

Perhaps there is no God.

Isn’t it better to seek the truth?

 

[askeptic]

Liberian:

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

Protestants were by no means the first “heretics.”

There are even “heretical” gospels that were written within 100 years of the 4 in the official Bible.

bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Def.show/RTD/ISBE/ID/612

 

[askeptic]

Maranatha:

The study below is a well document rebuttal to the theory that mark’s Gospel was written first. The study also covers reasons why some Gospels would leave out certain incidents. It’s well worth the time.

I will look at the link you provided if I have time. I wrote here forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=97415 about dating using Catholic sources. (USCCB New American Bible commentary, in fact.)

 

[Brian_Ingram]

askeptic:

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?

According to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that Peter preached.

Peter as recorded in Acts was the main spokesman for the Apostles, it was he that preached to the crowds, and subsequently what the other apostles taught and wrote would show a degree of harmonising on what he taught. So although Marks gospel was second to Matthews a lot of Mathews gospel would be seen to be drawn from Mark Gospel
As Papias said of Mark “he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter”
Matthew on the other hand was one of the twelve and a first hand witness.

Pax

Brian.

 

[askeptic]

Brian Ingram:

According to Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis, (c. 60-130) Mark became Peter’s interpreter and wrote accurately all that Peter preached.

Peter as recorded in Acts was the main spokesman for the Apostles, it was he that preached to the crowds, and subsequently what the other apostles taught and wrote would show a degree of harmonising on what he taught. So although Marks gospel was second to Matthews a lot of Mathews gospel would be seen to be drawn from Mark Gospel
As Papias said of Mark “he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter”
Matthew on the other hand was one of the twelve and a first hand witness.

Pax

Brian.

As I wrote in my other post, quoting from USCCB’s New American Bible commentary:

"The ancient tradition that the author was the disciple and apostle of Jesus named Matthew (see Matthew 10:3) is untenable because the gospel is based, in large part, on the Gospel according to Mark (almost all the verses of that gospel have been utilized in this), and it is hardly likely that a companion of Jesus would have followed so extensively an account that came from one who admittedly never had such an association rather than rely on his own memories. The attribution of the gospel to the disciple Matthew may have been due to his having been responsible for some of the traditions found in it, but that is far from certain.

The unknown author, whom we shall continue to call Matthew for the sake of convenience, drew not only upon the Gospel according to Mark but upon a large body of material (principally, sayings of Jesus) not found in Mark that corresponds, sometimes exactly, to material found also in the Gospel according to Luke. This material, called “Q” (probably from the first letter of the German word Quelle, meaning “source”), represents traditions, written and oral, used by both Matthew and Luke. Mark and Q are sources common to the two other synoptic gospels; hence the name the “Two-Source Theory” given to this explanation of the relation among the synoptics.

In addition to what Matthew drew from Mark and Q, his gospel contains material that is found only there. This is often designated “M,” written or oral tradition that was available to the author. Since Mark was written shortly before or shortly after A.D. 70 (see Introduction to Mark), Matthew was composed certainly after that date, which marks the fall of Jerusalem to the Romans at the time of the First Jewish Revolt (A.D. 66-70), and probably at least a decade later since Matthew’s use of Mark presupposes a wide diffusion of that gospel. The post-A.D. 70 date is confirmed within the text by Matthew 22:7, which refers to the destruction of Jerusalem. usccb.org/nab/bible/matthew/intro.htm

In addtion, if Mark truly was Peter’s interpreter, then the fact that he does not mention the founding of the Church upon Peter becomes even more alarming.

 

[askeptic]

BrianH:

askeptic, you are right about the significance of this for some…as you might be aware I have even heard some consider it an interpolation…but there is no real proof of that…for people who do not accept the authority of the Catholic church and are not innerantists…the point is actually quite powerful…agreed.
BH

I have read about the possibility that this is an interpolation. I think there is something to it. What I would like to do is read the letters of Paul which date before the gospels and see what, if anything, he has to say about a Church being founded upon Peter.

 

[petra]

Roady:

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”

Greetings, Roady.

I’m a Catholic and I agree with you that the rock upon which the Church is built is Christ. The early church fathers were split on this issue between the options of the rock referring to Peter, to Peter’s confession, or to Christ Himself. St. Augustine actually arrived at the third conclusion late in life. You are also correct that this is a non-issue. Even if the rock is Christ, Christ still gave the keys primarily to Peter and secondarily to the other apostles. This fact does not contradict any of the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

In another post, you wrote,

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.

You are misinformed. The Catholic Church does not have the authority to make new revelation. It only has the charge of preserving the original deposit of faith left to the apostles by Jesus Christ. At various points in history doctrines are more clearly articulated, but new doctrines or changes in doctrine are not advanced.

An example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. Although the word does not appear in scripture and the doctrine not formally articulated until the Arian controversy in the fourth century, the concept was part of the apostolic deposit of faith. This was not new revelation under the “doctrine of papal infallibility and Holy Tradition.” It was a circumstance to more clearly define what was already believed. This has occurred numerous times throughout the history of the Church, but there is no new revelation.

I’m assuming that you believe in the Trinity. If you do, then your belief actually presupposes the inerrancy of Sacred Tradition. You believe in a doctrine that was first formally articulated and declared as dogma by the Catholic Church three centuries after Christ.

 

[Marilena]

askeptic:

It is generally believed that Mark is the earliest Gospel, written around 70 AD: 40 years after Jesus’ death. Matthew and Luke are thought to be based on Mark, and John is thought to be the latest of the 4.

Actually, Galatians is the first written. ( 54 AD )

 

[mlchance]

askeptic:

…if God actually founded a Church with the “keys to the kingdom of heaven”, then in my opinion it is far too important to leave out.

I guess we’ll just have to chalk this up to God not wanting to wait until your editorial sensibilities came around to improve upon his revelation.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Roady:

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.

Our beliefs come from Jesus Christ, who appointed Peter as the foundation and head of His Church:

16 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.”

If you deny Christ’s words, do you not deny Christ Himself?

 

[BrianH]

askeptic:

I have read about the possibility that this is an interpolation. I think there is something to it. What I would like to do is read the letters of Paul which date before the gospels and see what, if anything, he has to say about a Church being founded upon Peter.

He does not mention it. This is very true

BH

 

[mercygate]

Roady:

let’s see if I can do this correctly.

This is a response to Mercygate, who argued against my AGREEMENT with the church’s teaching from Matthew 16:18.

I’m afraid your attempt at including Jesus Christ along with Peter is not found in the text, nor is it church teaching.


Roady

Since Paul in Ephesians 2:20, and Peter in his first epistle 2:6&7 refer to Jesus as the cornerstone of the household of God, and Jesus, quoting Ps. 118, as “the stone which the builders rejected has become the headstone of the corner,” it is not possible for the Church to say that Jesus is not the head and foundation stone of the Church.

Are you saying that the Church does not teach that Jesus is the head of the Church? Of course he is. See the *Catechism. *Peter is his prime minister on earth on the pattern of Isaiah 22.

 

[mercygate]

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

Then why didn’t he say so?

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

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?

I know Matthew was present and the others were not because Matthew was one of the 12. Mark and Luke were not. In this pericope, as in the one preceding, Jesus is addressing the 12 according to the context.

 

[mercygate]

BrianH:

You guys are acting like you have never encountered a Christian who is not an innerantist or Catholic. Is that the case? Curious.
I will use the same argument you guys use against Sola Scripture. The Bible does not teach innerancy…does it?
BH

Barista! One double espresso for Brian! On my tab.
How would the argument that something MUST be found in Scripture (and since this case IS found in Scripture, the question is beside he point) apply to those who believe that there are theological truths not explicitly limned out on the surface of the text?

Actually, most people who come here to challenge the Catholic position are inerrantists. But their view of what it means for something to be taught in Scripture is often embarrassingly superficial. I say that because it is possible to hold an intellectually respectable, “high” view of sola Scriptura, along with the position that Scripture is inerrant, without being naive. Dr. R. C. Sproul would be the best well-known example of someone who holds such a view, although Catholics scratch their heads at his assertion that the Bible is a FALLIBLE collection of INFALLIBLE (he means inerrant) books.

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

I have read about the possibility that this is an interpolation. I think there is something to it. What I would like to do is read the letters of Paul which date before the gospels and see what, if anything, he has to say about a Church being founded upon Peter.

Since in Galatians, dating from the mid-50s, Paul tells us that he went up to Jerusalem to consult with Peter and the “pillars of the Church” to verify that the gospel he was preaching was the same as theirs, doesn’t that at least lend credibility that Paul was concerned to receive affirmation from Peter, lest he “should be running or had run in vain” ?

While it might be possible to hold that it was the entire Church at Jerusalem whose opinion Paul sought, it is certain that Peter was part of that team, so the idea that the authentication Paul sought might be possible without Peter would be difficult to support.

 

[NWUArmyROTC]

I don’t like his timeline. Mark was probably written by A.D. 50 (closer to 45), and Matthew and Luke in the AD 70s. John in AD 100. The later we push back the writing date of the Gospels, we begin treading on that higher criticism. Just my thoughts.

 

[askeptic]

mercygate:

Since in Galatians, dating from the mid-50s, Paul tells us that he went up to Jerusalem to consult with Peter and the “pillars of the Church” to verify that the gospel he was preaching was the same as theirs, doesn’t that at least lend credibility that Paul was concerned to receive affirmation from Peter, lest he “should be running or had run in vain” ?

While it might be possible to hold that it was the entire Church at Jerusalem whose opinion Paul sought, it is certain that Peter was part of that team, so the idea that the authentication Paul sought might be possible without Peter would be difficult to support.

Would you mind pasting the passage or the reference to it, I would like to read it. Thanks