MERGED: The Rock: Peter's Confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lyrikal
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter had a very interesting relationship with Christ. He was outspoken and active, even cutting off the soldier’s ear. He proclaimed Christ’s divinity and was blessed for it. He then denied the Lord three times, only to be forgiven and told to go start the Church. He worked to bring the good news of Christ to the Jews while Paul took it to the Gentiles, and he was faithful to the end.

He certainly set himself apart with his faith, repentance, and life. He did, in fact, play a key role in laying the foundation for the church. My biggest issue is in understanding why his blessed position carried on to another man after his death.

But yes, I believe that Peter, not his faith, was what was referred to as the Rock.
 
ConsciousCoward said:
Peter had a very interesting relationship with Christ. He was outspoken and active, even cutting off the soldier’s ear. He proclaimed Christ’s divinity and was blessed for it. He then denied the Lord three times, only to be forgiven and told to go start the Church. He worked to bring the good news of Christ to the Jews while Paul took it to the Gentiles, and he was faithful to the end.

He certainly set himself apart with his faith, repentance, and life. He did, in fact, play a key role in laying the foundation for the church. My biggest issue is in understanding why his blessed position carried on to another man after his death.

But yes, I believe that Peter, not his faith, was what was referred to as the Rock.
Click to expand...
Well Peter was given the Keys. After his death where would the keys belong to? Buried or passed on? My guess would be passed on because Jesus said “And the gates of the underworld can never hold out against it”. Never implies nothing else than a continuation and Peter died eventually.

MJ
 
Irishmen10 said:
15 ‘But you,’ he said, ‘who do you say I am?’
16 Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’
17 Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’

What is the Rock? And whats the importance of it?
Click to expand...
The Rock is Jesus.

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I think His importance should be obvious.
 
Richard_Kastner said:
The Rock is Jesus.

Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

1 Corinthians 10:4
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

I think His importance should be obvious.
Click to expand...
Yes you’re right. If one takes it out of context.

On this rock I will build my Church. The Church belongs to Jesus, who started the Church but Peter (which is also a word for rock) is given the keys, or the one to open and close the entrance to the Kingdom of Heaven.

The Gates of the underworld will never hold out against it. Never is the importance of the Rock

My own way of looking at it.

MJ
 
To me though, it seems to imply that Jesus is acknowledging Peter’s testimony of Him and is telling Peter that upon the rock of his testimony (in Christ) He will build His church… and corinthians 3:11 states 11 For nobody can lay down any other foundation than the one which is there already, namely Jesus Christ. So Christ is the foundation, is he also the Rock then too?
 
Irishmen10 said:
To me though, it seems to imply that Jesus is acknowledging Peter’s testimony of Him and is telling Peter that upon the rock of his testimony (in Christ) He will build His church… and corinthians 3:11 states 11 For nobody can lay down any other foundation than the one which is there already, namely Jesus Christ. So Christ is the foundation, is he also the Rock then too?
Click to expand...
Hi there Irishmen10.

Jesus is telling Simon who he names Peter ( A Greek name for Rock). I think many people still base Peter as a persons name as we call a regular guy Peter. The latter is hard for many to shake off imo.

MJ
 
Irishmen10 said:
To me though, it seems to imply that Jesus is acknowledging Peter’s testimony of Him and is telling Peter that upon the rock of his testimony (in Christ) He will build His church… and corinthians 3:11 states 11 For nobody can lay down any other foundation than the one which is there already, namely Jesus Christ. So Christ is the foundation, is he also the Rock then too?
Click to expand...
You just made a non sequitur. You assume you are right because you say so. Yes Christ is the foundation of the Church, but I fail to see your point why it matters who the rock is. I shall explain:

I could say that the rock is the Earth, and that Peter is given the keys to rule Christ’s Church. Just because I say so. I can also say that Jesus spoke to Peter as the rock, and his Church will be built upon him. Either way, Peter is given authority over the Church, enough that the netherworld will not prevail against it.

You can’t prove either, but Ill take the word of the Church we got the Bible from.
 
There’s also many writings from the Early Church Fathers that write about Peter being the Rock and about apostolic succession.

Augustine

“[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house” (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

Jerome

“Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians” (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Clement I

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Tatian the Syrian

“Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

“Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]” (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
 
Redratfish said:
You just made a non sequitur. You assume you are right because you say so. Yes Christ is the foundation of the Church, but I fail to see your point why it matters who the rock is. I shall explain:

I could say that the rock is the Earth, and that Peter is given the keys to rule Christ’s Church. Just because I say so. I can also say that Jesus spoke to Peter as the rock, and his Church will be built upon him. Either way, Peter is given authority over the Church, enough that the netherworld will not prevail against it.

You can’t prove either, but Ill take the word of the Church we got the Bible from.
Click to expand...
I don’t know what non sequitur means but i’m not saying that I am right. I’m just saying that I view the passage a certain way. Obviously I can’t truly know the answer to the question because part of it is faith. I just want to know the Catholic standing on the passage. I understand that Aramaic is also involved in explaining. Kepha is the word for rock and in english its Cephas (which is Peter’s name). To me, The entire Catholic Church is founded upon this passage. So if it’s true, that makes the Catholic Church God’s church. If it isn’t, then we have a problem. I’ll just have to pray about it.
 
The Protestant RSV, footnote to Matthew 16:18 - 19:

QUOTE

18 The Greek text involves a play on two words, Petros (“Peter”) and petra (“rock”). Palestinian Aramaic, which Jesus usually spoke, used the same word for both proper name and common noun: “You are Kepha [Cephas; compare 1 Cor. 15.5; Gal.2.9}, and on this *kepha [rock] I will build . . .”

19 The keys of the kingdom are a symbol of Peter’s power as the leader of the church. Bind and loose are technical rabbinic terms meaning “forbid” and “permit” some action about which a question has arisen.

END QUOTE

The relevant question is, how did the Apostles understand Jesus’ words? And what did the Apostles teach the first Christians? Answer: exactly the way the scholars who translated the RSV understand them. Peter means Rock, and rock means Peter. In French, it is Pierre; in Spanish, Pedro, in English, Peter. All mean rock. Christ changed Simon’s name to Rock. He said, You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build by church.

John 1:42: “He [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).” Again, we see that Jesus named Simon “Rock” (Cephas or Kepha).

Jim Dandy
 
Irishmen10 said:
What is the Rock? And whats the importance of it?
Click to expand...
The Rock is Peter. The Church is built on the Rock - on Peter. Peter is given the authority of the Papacy here and when Christ gives him keys, authority to bind and loose, tells him to feed His sheep, etc etc.

The verse can also be read “You are Rock, and upon this Rocks I will build my church”.

To paraphrase the argument I have heard from elsewhere: It is sometimes argued that Peter is not the Rock because the second word is Petras and the first Petros or some such. At this point, it is important to realize 1) that Greek words have gender (much as Spanish and the like do today) and 2) that Jesus did not in fact speak Greek, but rather Aramaic. In Aramaic, both words would be Cephas (and Peter is in fact called Cephas by Paul many times) and so the metaphor would sound exactly like it does in English, with no fiddling around about whether or not Jesus really meant to say “you are Rock, and upon some other unrelated Rock I haven’t mentioned before I will build my Church.”
 
ConsciousCoward said:
My biggest issue is in understanding why his blessed position carried on to another man after his death.
Click to expand...
I see three possible answers to the question of successors to Peter and the community of 12 Apostles within which Peter was set apart to play a unique, special role:
  1. The Catholic position: Peter needed a successor to carry on his work after his death, and the 12 Apostles as a community also needed successors to continue their work after their deaths, and even to expand their work already during their lifetimes. Since Peter was set apart as a singular person playing a singular role within the community of 12 Apostles, it was understood that he must have one single successor in that role, not 2, not 3, not 10 or any other plural number. Thus the one Peter has only one successor (Pope, Bishop of Rome) at any given time. But for the role of successors to the community of 12 Apostles, they decided to ordain more than 12 people, already during their lifetimes. It was the understanding of the Apostles that they should have successors, to continue their work after their deaths. There were 12 Apostles in the beginning, but today we have some 5000 successors to the Apostles called Bishops, who continue the work of the original 12 Apostles.
  2. The position of many Protestants: neither Peter, nor the other 11 apostles needed successors. Their roles went to the grave with them. There’s no need for Pope of Rome to continue Peter’s work, and there’s no need for Bishops to continue the work of the original 12 Apostles. The whole thing was a one-time arrangement set up by Jesus Christ, meant to be discontinued and abandoned after the death of these 12 Apostles. This Protestant position inevitably entails the notion that those 12 original Apostles have already fallen into error, when they felt the need to ordain successors for themselves (successors for Peter as Rock and foundation, and successors for the Apostles as a community of Church leaders). It also entails the notion that there’s no way to know today who’s right and who’s wrong, when people in opposing camps disagree in things like sinfulness/permittedness of homosexual acts, artificial contraception, abortion, etc, because people in both camps confess that Jesus is Son of God, thus both camps are part of Christ’s Church, both camps constitute Rocks on whom the Church is established, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against this Church. Yet, if one camp says that certain acts are sinful, and the other camp disagrees, that means that the Gates of Hell did prevail, as a matter of fact, against this Church which is divided and one half wants to forbid, while the other half wants to permit those controversial acts (such as the use of birth control pills, for example).
  3. A hybrid position which asserts that the Apostles at large needed successors in the persons of the Bishops today, but Peter in particular didn’t need a successor to carry on his role as singular Rock and singular foundation for the Church. This is what some of the Eastern Orthodox Churches seem to believe today, because they do ordain Bishops to succede and expand the numbers of their existing Bishops, but they make no effort to ordain a singular successor to Peter who would carry out Peter’s specific role. One the one hand, they believe that the string of Popes since the Great Schism of 1054 (Catholic-Orthodox schism of 1054) have fallen into heresy (“Filioque” heresy and others) and are no longer legitimate successors to Peter, and on the other hand, they made no effort in close to 1000 years since 1054 to elect a successor who, in their view, could be the legitimate and fully orthodox successor of Peter instead of the one who sits in Rome and whom, in EO views, has fallen into heterodoxy.
 
Irishmen10 said:
To me though, it seems to imply that Jesus is acknowledging Peter’s testimony of Him and is telling Peter that upon the rock of his testimony (in Christ) He will build His church… and corinthians 3:11 states 11 For nobody can lay down any other foundation than the one which is there already, namely Jesus Christ. So Christ is the foundation, is he also the Rock then too?
Click to expand...
The Scriptures use various metaphors…and bring out various aspects too. One can of course speak of Christ being the foundation laid …(I Cor 3:11)…but such does not contradict that Christ was to build his Church upon Peter…and give him a particular office …etc

Various images are used in Scripture.

Just take a look at Ephesians 2:20 where the apostles and prophets are the “foundation” and Christ is the cornerstone here…

Getting back to Matthew…

Jesus in Matthew speaks of building upon the rock (Peter)…he is the builder in that verse as Steve Ray points out…a builder building on a foundation a rock…Peter.
 
Lots of “both and’s” in our faith…

Christ is both God and Man…

God is both one God and three Persons…

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.

552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.” This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

also read Pope Benedict XVI:

“The Liturgy of the day presents anew Peter’s profession of faith to Jesus: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Mt 16:16). This declaration is not the product of reason but a revelation of the Father to the humble fisherman of Galilee, as Jesus himself confirms, saying: “flesh and blood has not revealed this to you” (Mt 16:17). Simon Peter is so close to the Lord that he himself becomes a rock of faith and love on which Jesus has built his Church…” Pope Benedict XVI June 30 2011

"It is the faith professed by Peter that constitutes the foundation of the Church: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” " Pope Benedict XVI 29 June 2010

“represented by St Peter, the “rock” upon which Jesus Christ built his Church.”
Pope Benedict XVI 29 June 2008
 
Irishmen10 said:
15 ‘But you,’ he said, ‘who do you say I am?’
16 Then Simon Peter spoke up and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’
17 Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you but my Father in heaven.
18 So I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’

What is the Rock? And whats the importance of it?
Click to expand...
Hello Irishmen

In this passage Jesus explicitly renames Simon. The original language was Aramaic, and Jesus named him “Cephas” = rock. A huge boulder type rock. When the Aramaic language was translated into the Greek language, the translation came up with a new, never before seen word for this person, Simon, the rock: Petros. A rock (the large rock) is a female verb, and is petra, however, since Simon is a male, they could not call him with a female name: thus the new terminology of PETROS. In English it is Peter; in French it is Pierre. In some parts of the NT Simon is still called “Cephas”.

1 Corinthians 15:5-and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Galatians 2:9-and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars…

Jesus, although described as “the rock of salvation” in other parts of the Bible, is not referring to Himself here, as the rock. Jesus is the “cornerstone” or “keystone” and even the “capstone”. These, as all builders know, are important ‘stones’ that hold a structure in place and secure it. The cornerstone is the first stone laid in a foundation. The Apostles are described in Scripture as the 12 foundations of the Church. A strong foundation is built upon a large ‘rock’…and Jesus describes this in one of His parables:

**Luke 6:48 **
That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built.

Jesus is our cornerstone:

Psalm 118:22 (see also Matt 21:42)
The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.

Foundation of the Apostles:

Revelation 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Now, Jesus handing over the Keys to the kingdom is very significant. In every kingdom the King has a “right hand man” – the Royal Stewart. This RS has the keys to the kingdom which open and close the gates to the kingdom. No one else has them except the RS. He also has the key to the royal treasury, and so important is his role, that no one can see the king or have access to the king without first going through the Royal Stewart. When the king was away it was the Royal Stewart who ruled the kingdom until the king returned. This position was a lifelong term. When the RS died, another was chosen/elected.

This “key” was mentioned in Isaiah:
Isaiah 22:22 NKJV
The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Christ is our King - the “King of kings” and Christ handed the keys to the kingdom to ONLY Peter (and thereafter Peter’s successors). The Church is the Kingdom on earth, Christ is the King, and Peter is the Royal Stewart (Our first Pope). Christ is not physically present to run the kingdom on earth (the Church), but His Holy Spirit, as promised, guides the Church always, and the “gates of hell will never prevail”, and we have our “royal stewart” and the successors in our Popes. When Christ, our King, returns the keys to the kingdom will be given back. That is why the artist Michaelangelo painted Peter handing the key back to Christ in the Sistine Chapel.

Protestants don’t like this fact, but there it is. Just as Christ gave us.

Blessings,
CEM
 
I guess I fall closest to the EO point of view. There’s no denying the importance of Bishops, as their role is clearly defined and their importance clearly stated in the New Testament. I still don’t understand why a successor of Peter carried forth his role, however. And wouldn’t Peter have ordained many bishops? If the other apostles spread out their roles by ordaining many bishops, why wouldn’t Peter’s role be spread amongst the bishops he ordained by the same logic?

Sorry if I’m sounding arrogant, it’s just that though I do know (and agree with) more about Catholic teachings than most other non-Catholic Christians, I was still raised in a non-Catholic household, and so I get to ask these questions to people on the Internet instead of parents. I’m truly just interested but confused.
 
lyrikal said:
Hello,

This is not a debate on whether or not Peter is a little pebble or a big rock. I am Catholic and I believe that the person of Peter and also his confession was the Rock on earth.

For those who believe that the Rock is peter’s confession alone, I will present my question to you after quoting some passages from Scripture that my question has to do with.

John 1:43-51
43 The next day Jesus decided to go to Galilee. He found Philip and said to him, “Follow me.” 44Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the city of Andrew and Peter. 45Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found him of whom Moses in the Law and also the prophets wrote, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” 46Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come out of Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.” 47Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Behold, an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no deceit!” 48Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered him, “Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you.” **49Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! **You are the King of Israel!” 50Jesus answered him, “Because I said to you, ‘I saw you under the fig tree,’ do you believe? You will see greater things than these.” 51And he said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, you will see heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man.”

Matthew 14:28-33
28And Peter answered him, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.” 29He said, “Come.” So Peter got out of the boat and walked on the water and came to Jesus. 30But when he saw the wind, he was afraid, and beginning to sink he cried out, “Lord, save me.” 31Jesus immediately reached out his hand and took hold of him, saying to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” 32And when they got into the boat, the wind ceased. 33And those in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

(Translation is from the English Standard Version)

My question(s) is/are: If the Rock is peter’s confession alone, then why didn’t Jesus make Nathanael the Rock since he confessed that Jesus is the Son of God in the very beginning of His ministry.

Also, ALL the Apostles proclaimed Jesus to be the Son of God in Matthew 14, why didn’t Jesus make all the Apostles’ confession the Rock?

Better yet, why didn’t Jesus give Nathanael the keys to the Kingdom? Why didn’t He give the keys to ALL the Apostles when they confessed that He is the Son of God? Why did He wait for Peter’s confession in order to start handing out the keys?

Again, I DO believe that Peter’s confession is the Rock; however, I do not believe that Peter’s confession alone is the Rock. The Rock is Peter himself and also his confession. The two cannot be separated.

If confession is all it took for Jesus to start making people rocks and handing out keys, then why did He wait until Peter professed it?

I am interested in hearing anyone’s (name removed by moderator)ut in this matter.

Thank you and God bless. 🙂
Click to expand...
I agree with you.

BTW

[bibledrb]Matthew 14:28-33[/bibledrb]

This passage has sustained me through various hardships in my life.

God Bless You as well.
 
CEM5 said:
Hello Irishmen

In this passage Jesus explicitly renames Simon. The original language was Aramaic, and Jesus named him “Cephas” = rock. A huge boulder type rock. When the Aramaic language was translated into the Greek language, the translation came up with a new, never before seen word for this person, Simon, the rock: Petros. A rock (the large rock) is a female verb, and is petra, however, since Simon is a male, they could not call him with a female name: thus the new terminology of PETROS. In English it is Peter; in French it is Pierre. In some parts of the NT Simon is still called “Cephas”.

1 Corinthians 15:5-and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.

Galatians 2:9-and when James and Cephas and John, who were acknowledged pillars…

Jesus, although described as “the rock of salvation” in other parts of the Bible, is not referring to Himself here, as the rock. Jesus is the “cornerstone” or “keystone” and even the “capstone”. These, as all builders know, are important ‘stones’ that hold a structure in place and secure it. The cornerstone is the first stone laid in a foundation. The Apostles are described in Scripture as the 12 foundations of the Church. A strong foundation is built upon a large ‘rock’…and Jesus describes this in one of His parables:

**Luke 6:48 **
That one is like a man building a house, who dug deeply and laid the foundation on rock; when a flood arose, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built.

Jesus is our cornerstone:

Psalm 118:22 (see also Matt 21:42)
The stone which the builders rejected Has become the chief cornerstone.

Isaiah 28:16
Therefore thus says the Lord God: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.

Foundation of the Apostles:

Revelation 21:14
Now the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Now, Jesus handing over the Keys to the kingdom is very significant. In every kingdom the King has a “right hand man” – the Royal Stewart. This RS has the keys to the kingdom which open and close the gates to the kingdom. No one else has them except the RS. He also has the key to the royal treasury, and so important is his role, that no one can see the king or have access to the king without first going through the Royal Stewart. When the king was away it was the Royal Stewart who ruled the kingdom until the king returned. This position was a lifelong term. When the RS died, another was chosen/elected.

This “key” was mentioned in Isaiah:
Isaiah 22:22 NKJV
The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.

Christ is our King - the “King of kings” and Christ handed the keys to the kingdom to ONLY Peter (and thereafter Peter’s successors). The Church is the Kingdom on earth, Christ is the King, and Peter is the Royal Stewart (Our first Pope). Christ is not physically present to run the kingdom on earth (the Church), but His Holy Spirit, as promised, guides the Church always, and the “gates of hell will never prevail”, and we have our “royal stewart” and the successors in our Popes. When Christ, our King, returns the keys to the kingdom will be given back. That is why the artist Michaelangelo painted Peter handing the key back to Christ in the Sistine Chapel.

Protestants don’t like this fact, but there it is. Just as Christ gave us.

Blessings,
CEM
Click to expand...
I really like this explaination. I’ve been raised LDS and have served a mission myself. But I’ve never fully believed in my religion and have had doubts and concerns. With the knowledge that you have just given me I feel like I need to take a leap of faith here. Where do I go to receive answers in person? Do I see a Priest during Mass or during confessions? How do i contact a Catholic to get answers to my questions so I can start understanding this Church. Any suggestions would help.
 
ConsciousCoward said:
I guess I fall closest to the EO point of view. There’s no denying the importance of Bishops, as their role is clearly defined and their importance clearly stated in the New Testament. I still don’t understand why a successor of Peter carried forth his role, however. And wouldn’t Peter have ordained many bishops? If the other apostles spread out their roles by ordaining many bishops, why wouldn’t Peter’s role be spread amongst the bishops he ordained by the same logic?

Sorry if I’m sounding arrogant, it’s just that though I do know (and agree with) more about Catholic teachings than most other non-Catholic Christians, I was still raised in a non-Catholic household, and so I get to ask these questions to people on the Internet instead of parents. I’m truly just interested but confused.
Click to expand...
Hello ConsciousCoward 🙂

As Catholics, we have logical and reasonable reasons to believe that the Primacy of Peter continued even after the death of Peter. The main reason is that having a primacy and a leader of the Church keeps unity in the Church. If you give keys and equal authority to all 12 Bishops then what happens when Bishop #4 disagrees with Bishop #7 on a doctrinal matter? There must be a primary Bishop who has authority over all Bishops and who is guided by the Holy Spirit to assure unity in the universality of the Catholic Faith.

I am a Chaldean Catholic but I am in communion with the Bishop of Rome and that allows unity between the Chaldean Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic Church. If you take out the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome, then the Chaldean Catholic Church would claim her own authority over the Roman Catholic Church and visa versa. None of them would be able to tell the other what is right and what is wrong. No leader, no unity.

Also, another reason is the Early Church Fathers saw a necessity for a Succession of the Chair of Peter. Some of them even give us the names of the Bishops who succeeded Peter. What would be their purpose of doing that? Because they saw that the Chair of Peter is significant and not the same as the other Apostles. The fact that they would give us a list of all the Bishops who succeeded Peter is VERY telling in my opinion.

God bless you, brother. You’ll be in my prayers. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top