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

[askeptic]

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.

What are your reasons for believing that Mark was written by AD 50?

The sources I posted for the dating are Catholic, USCCB’s New American Bible commentary. Some skeptical sources date the gospels later than that.

On the other hand, some of Paul’s letters do date back to AD50.

 

[Roady]

petra:

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,

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.

 

[Roady]

mercygate:

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, this is a very busy forum. First, let me say besides the personal email I received last night, everyone has been intelligent and civil in the discussions.

Back to the issue of your church being built upon Peter. You are using the very same Scripture that I do as evidence that the true church is built upon Jesus Christ, and not upon Peter. So I am curious if you are Roman Catholic. It seems that you agree that “this rock” is indeed Christ.

And to answer the next question, Catholic teaching is that whoever sits in the chair of Peter is head over the whole church on earth. Unless you are referring to Christ being the head of the church in heaven, then it is misleading to say Christ is head of the church here on earth. Why? Because our discussions have been regarding the church on earth.

Roady

 

[Roady]

Originally Posted by petra
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.

Roady responds: Are you saying that it is not an official teaching of the C church on Matthew 16:18; that the church is built upon Peter and successors?

In another post, you wrote,

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.

Good for you, you are right. But I think that “clearly articulating” and perpetuating doctrines from which the Scriptures are silent about could easily be construed as new Revelation. However, I won’t use that word in order to keep this a discussion in place of an argument. I would also point out that it is a huge issue even among catholics that doctrine has not changed in all these centuries. But we don’t need to go there

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.

The trinity is not an example that I would use to make my point. I’ve read ancient rabbinicals that teach God is triune, not to mention the best reason of all, and that is the Scripture tells us God is triune. I think a great example of “articulating” would be introducing the office of the sacramental priesthood after it was completely abolished with Christ.

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.

I don’t believe in the Trinity because of the C. church, I believe it because the Scriptures teach it from Genesis to Revelation.

Have a good day

Roady

 

[dumspirospero]

First off…that is a blatantly outlandish statement against Mr. Keating…secondly, last time I checked, Mormons are not protestants…heck they are not even Christians considering they don’t use the proper Trinitarian formula for Baptism.

Roady:

and p.s…I came over here because of an article by K. Keating…sheesh, the man is anti-protestant and ought to be ashamed for stirring up bad blood between us.

Roady

 

[Aquarius]

dumspirospero:

First off…that is a blatantly outlandish statement against Mr. Keating…secondly, last time I checked, Mormons are not protestants…heck they are not even Christians considering they don’t use the proper Trinitarian formula for Baptism.

What is a Christian?

 

[Roady]

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” ?

Benedicite, this is very misleading. The truth is that Paul was blaming Peter, not receiving confirmation. Ga. 2:11 “And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

Roady

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.

---

Benedicite

 

[dumspirospero]

Try to be more coherent when you speak…it is hard to understand what you are saying…with that said though…I do understand one of the things you said…You said The Church is “built on Christ, not a man”…we all know this is false, because Christ renamed Simon, Peter…and Peter means rock…the Church is founded upon our first Pope Peter, by Christ who promised The Gates of Hell would never prevail…however, let us assume for just one brief moment the fallacious comment you made is true…That The Church was built on Christ…you claim Christ is not a Man…did you skip Theology 101…CHRIST WAS FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE…therefore your “theory” or incorrect interpretation of The Gospel doesn’t carry any weight and is laughable at best because you don’t even recognize Christ as being fully Human as well as Divine…At least learn the facts before you argue a bogus point.

Roady:

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church is built upon Peter. So why argue against it. That should prove that the true church that Jesus built is built on Christ, not a man.

Roady

 

[Roady]

dumspirospero:

Try to be more coherent when you speak…it is hard to understand what you are saying…with that said though…I do understand one of the things you said…You said The Church is “built on Christ, not a man”…we all know this is false, because Christ renamed Simon, Peter…and Peter means rock…the Church is founded upon our first Pope Peter,

okie dokie

Roady

by Christ who promised The Gates of Hell would never prevail…however, let us assume for just one brief moment the fallacious comment you made is true…That The Church was built on Christ…you claim Christ is not a Man…did you skip Theology 101…CHRIST WAS FULLY HUMAN AND FULLY DIVINE…therefore your “theory” or incorrect interpretation of The Gospel doesn’t carry any weight and is laughable at best because you don’t even recognize Christ as being fully Human as well as Divine…At least learn the facts before you argue a bogus point.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aquarius:

What is a Christian?

A Christian is a person who has been formally baptized.

However, I would make a sharp distinction between the theological issues of the form of baptism and the claim to be Christian. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claim to be Christian, I cannot see how it profits me or the Catholic Church to deny their claim.

If a man says he is my brother, I will accept him as my brother, be he ever so different from the rest of the family.

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

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

C’mon askeptic, you have a Bible. Galatians, Chapter 2. Read the whole thing, but he states that he consulted privately with “those who were reputed to be important” who made him add nothing to his teaching (vs 6). . In 8 & 9, he says, “the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the cirucmcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership . . .”

 

[Aquarius]

vern humphrey:

A Christian is a person who has been formally baptized.

However, I would make a sharp distinction between the theological issues of the form of baptism and the claim to be Christian. If the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints claim to be Christian, I cannot see how it profits me or the Catholic Church to deny their claim.

If a man says he is my brother, I will accept him as my brother, be he ever so different from the rest of the family.

That’s a good answer.

I often ask the question, “What is a Christian?” and I am amazed at the difficulties it makes for people as they try to craft definitions that exclude some group they don’t like.

For many, who have far more complex definitions than yours, Christianity seems to be about exclusion rather than inclusion. There are Real Christians, True Christians, Bible Christians, Catholic Christians, OSAS Christians, Faith Christians, Eastern Christians, Western Christians, Roman Christians, Christian Scientists, Evangelical Christians, Fundamental Christians, and Phoney Christians. And none of them like each other.

 

[mercygate]

Benedicite, this is very misleading. The truth is that Paul was blaming Peter, not receiving confirmation. Ga. 2:11 “And when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.”

Roady

No, Roady. Those are two different issues. One at Jerusalem and one at Antioch; the issue at Antioch had nothing to do with Peter’s teaching but with his catering to the Jerusalem crew over dietary laws – a disicplinary issue.

Nothing supports the notion that in Galatians 2 Paul went up to Jerusalem to tell Peter how to run the show.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Aquarius:

That’s a good answer.

I often ask the question, “What is a Christian?” and I am amazed at the difficulties it makes for people as they try to craft definitions that exclude some group they don’t like.

For many, who have far more complex definitions than yours, Christianity seems to be about exclusion rather than inclusion. There are Real Christians, True Christians, Bible Christians, Catholic Christians, OSAS Christians, Faith Christians, Eastern Christians, Western Christians, Roman Christians, Christian Scientists, Evangelical Christians, Fundamental Christians, and Phoney Christians. And none of them like each other.

I am aware there are people who do not like me or my Church. But I am not willing to cede control of either my emotions or my common sense to those people. I will not attack anyone’s religion, but will try to live so that people may come to ask about my religion.

Of course, there is always the famous warning in the zoo, "This animal is dangerous. When attacked, it defends itself."http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[mercygate]

Roady, please use the QUOTE feature when responding to posts; it is very hard to follow you when we cannot distinguish what you are saying from what you are responding to.

 

[mercygate]

Roady:

Mercygate, this is a very busy forum. First, let me say besides the personal email I received last night, everyone has been intelligent and civil in the discussions.

Back to the issue of your church being built upon Peter. You are using the very same Scripture that I do as evidence that the true church is built upon Jesus Christ, and not upon Peter. So I am curious if you are Roman Catholic. It seems that you agree that “this rock” is indeed Christ.

And to answer the next question, Catholic teaching is that whoever sits in the chair of Peter is head over the whole church on earth. Unless you are referring to Christ being the head of the church in heaven, then it is misleading to say Christ is head of the church here on earth. Why? Because our discussions have been regarding the church on earth.

Roady

Roady, you are saying that the head of the Church cannot be Christ because he has appointed a prime minister to be the centerpiece of her unity on earth?

Certainly “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 is Peter. The Greek admits no other reading. Period. And Jesus does not say, “upon this rock I will build Peter’s Church.” He says, "on this rock I will build MY Church.

As for “the church on earth,” for Catholics, that is a misnomer. The Church comprises those in heaven as well on earth, so Christ is head of His entire Church – and there is only one Church; it doesn’t stop being His Church when it reaches heaven nor vice versa.

Nothing I have said is misleading. If I have failed to connect the dots in a way that is understandable to you, I apologize. But there is no contradiction in having Christ as the bedrock of the Church and (since Jesus SAID it) in having Peter as rock and head of the church on earth. Peter does not act outside the mind of Christ, does not oppose or contradict him, but always acts on his behalf.

Claiming a contradiction between the ministry of Peter and the headship of Christ is a flat-out contradiction of Scripture.

 

[askeptic]

mercygate:

C’mon askeptic, you have a Bible. Galatians, Chapter 2. Read the whole thing, but he states that he consulted privately with “those who were reputed to be important” who made him add nothing to his teaching (vs 6). . In 8 & 9, he says, “the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the cirucmcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership . . .”

What you have told me so far simply suggests that Paul was aware of other Christian leaders and wanted to consult them about what he was preaching.

James, Kephas, and John are all supposed pillars. Nothing in it suggests that Peter was ordained by God himself to be the main pillar. This passage suggests that Peter was one of the important Christian leaders, but it does not imply that God established an actual church upon Peter or that he gave them the “keys to the kindgom.”

On the other hand, if Paul said he was going to consult “the rock on whom Christ built an infallible Church”, I would consider it evidence.

 

[mercygate]

The problem with your position is that Paul’s Jerusalem adventure recognizes that the Church is the authority by which the Gospel is preached. Even Paul, with his knock-down-knock-out personal revelation from Christ himself went to the Church to make sure that his preaching had not been in vain – He went to a physical church, not some invisible entity without a body but a church made of human beings. People with names: one of them Kephas. He did not go to consult with a Christian community evangelized by one of the other Apostles. Peter was THERE.

The Apostolic Churches, consistent with Scripture, maintain that contact, that “right hand of partnership” with the Apostolic teaching.

 

[askeptic]

mercygate:

C’mon askeptic, you have a Bible. Galatians, Chapter 2. Read the whole thing, but he states that he consulted privately with “those who were reputed to be important” who made him add nothing to his teaching (vs 6). . In 8 & 9, he says, “the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the cirucmcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership . . .”

Okay, here are my thoughts on Galatians chapter 2:

2 I went up in accord with a revelation, 3 and I presented to them the gospel that I preach to the Gentiles–but privately to those of repute–so that I might not be running, or have run, in vain.

All this implies is that there were reputable Christian leaders in Jerusalem, not that Christ established an infallible Church upon one man, Peter.

6 But from those who were reputed to be important ** (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality**)–those of repute made me add nothing.
7 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised,
8 **for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, ** 9 and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Kephas and John, 8 who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

If Peter was the Bishop of Rome, what was he doing in Jerusalem, and why is he considered to be an apostle to the circumcized? This passage also suggests that Peter and Kephas are different people. That he says “God shows no partiality” seems to contradict the idea that God chose one man on whom to establish a Church.It seems that authority was divided between districts: Paul was the authority for gentiles, Peter for Jews. It does not show one man to whom everyone submitted.

11 **And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. **
12 For, until some people came from James, 12 he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
13 And the rest of the Jews 13 (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that **they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?” **

If Kephas is the same man as Peter, then clearly Paul is opposing him, not submitting to his divinely ordained authority.

16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Paul also seems to be very Protestant in his understanding of justification by faith, not works.

 

[mercygate]

askeptic:

Okay, here are my thoughts on Galatians chapter 2:

All this implies is that there were reputable Christian leaders in Jerusalem, not that Christ established an infallible Church upon one man, Peter.

If Peter was the Bishop of Rome, what was he doing in Jerusalem, and why is he considered to be an apostle to the circumcized? This passage also suggests that Peter and Kephas are different people. That he says “God shows no partiality” seems to contradict the idea that God chose one man on whom to establish a Church.It seems that authority was divided between districts: Paul was the authority for gentiles, the others for Jews. It does not show one man to whom everyone submitted.

If Kephas is the same man as Peter, then clearly Paul is opposing him, not submitting to his divinely ordained authority.

Paul also seems to be very Protestant in his understanding of justification by faith, not works.

askeptic, let’s not wander into thread drift. Your points are not supported by the totality of Scripture, and that everything you want to make happen with regard to the demotion of Peter requires the deletion of Matthew 16:18-19. Kephas IS the same man as Peter. Paul is not opposing Peter in Jerusalem. That comes later, in Antioch, and has nothing to do with the Gospel but with the discipline of those who maintained the kosher laws. Paul was right on that.

I ask you, would the Catholic Church, which preserved these scriptures for 1500 years before anybody ever thought up the idea of sola Scriptura transmit a passage it believed would undercut its whole ecclesiology? Do all Catholics have a sign on our forehead that says “Call me stupid!”?

The spat at Antioch cannot abrogate Mt. 16:18-19.