Please see the response immediately after this one from PhilVaz.
Thank you Phil P. From Little Maryhomer << No comment. >>
Sorry, you aren’t dealing with Matt 16:18. The Catechism is perhaps the most fair since it says, along with many of the Church Fathers:
The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).
There are at least a dozen reasons why Peter = this rock, here they are as given by various Protestant and evangelical biblical scholars:
Let’s summarize what all the Protestant scholars are saying in their commentaries on Matthew 16:18 –
(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus’ Church, the Church would be built on Peter personally;
(B) Peter’s name means Rock (petros or petra in Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);
(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;
(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus’ day were interchangeable in meaning;
(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus’ words makes the Rock-rock identification certain;
(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could not be used for a man’s name, so Petros was used;
(G) Only because of past “Protestant bias” was the Peter is Rock identification denied;
(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the Rock;
(I) Jesus says “and on this rock” not “but on this rock” – the referent is therefore Peter personally;
(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular “you”) shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;
(K) Peter’s revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ parallels Jesus’ declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;
(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name changed, was a Father to God’s people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah 51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
And to bring it back to the topic, the Bible is “sufficient” to at least determine Peter = this rock.
Phil P
Little Mary, which text-type of Matthew are you using? Are you using the Peshitta?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand this question.
You have a very valid questions regarding Catholic Teaching. There are many things written in Scripture that are not interpreted by infallible teachings of the Church. There are also many people, who through misunderstanding, make statements using theologian’s speculations as if those statements are strict infallible teaching. When in doubt…go to the Catechism and the sources used therein.
My great concern with Sola Scriptura is that when used----------the Holy Spirit appears schizophrenic. You can ask 50 ministers of 50 denominations the same question and get 50 answers with hundreds of caveats to each answer. If you have a question and approach 50 priests this can happen as well. But then you can go to “Mother Church” and read what has been taught and how the same understanding of that teaching is applied to the current situation. There can be found, by those willing to read, an historical sequence of the teaching of Christ that has been taught. Even if that teaching has not always applied by every Catholic specifically we can know that it has been taught consistently and without contradiction. We can follow the teaching from the time of Christ until today. Therefore, with the understandings always held by the Church, we can show in a document written in the year 2000, how fetal stem cell research (or any other current situation), though never mentioned specifically as we know it today, goes directly against the teaching of Christ.
I am not accusing, I am trying to understand. You are correct that I use my fallible judgement to conclude the best answer to my questions. However, one of the evidences I can turn to is the teaching of an infallible Church. You can reject the infallibility of the Church, that is not the point of this thread. Suffice it to say that Catholics do make this claim. So when I say I have certainty of belief, I can explain how I have that certainty (appealing to the infallible teaching of the Church). And we can see the effects of this belief, in the form of a unified church that has taught the same doctrines for nearly 2000 years. It works. Therefore, it is at the very least, possible that the infallibility of the Church is what Jesus intended as the means of protecting His Church from error.
I’m trying to understand all this. I’m new here and I am eager to know.
