MERGED: The Rock: Peter's Confession?

[Steadfast_love]

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?

No no no!
Jesus is the rock. Peter is** rock too!**

As Cathlolics we have to hold two truths simultaniously.

1. Jesus is the rock. (Becuse scripture says so)
2. Peter is the rock. (Because Jesus says so)

The word “rock” is ambiguous since both Peter and Jesus are sometimes called rock. But the following terms are clear:

Jesus is:

• the rock
• the foundation
• the cornerstone
• a stumblingblock
• the living stone

Peter is:

• the rock the church founded on when Jesus said "Simon son of Jonah…
• Peter
• Cephas
• Holder of the keys

As far as your other point. I don’t see anything in the text that would make me believe that Jesus said (or intended to say) “Your testimony is Peter” or “anyone who has the same testemony as you is Peter.” Jesus identified who Peter is when he named him Peter.

E.g.
16 Then **Simon Peter **spoke up and said, ‘You (Jesus) are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’
17 Jesus replied, ‘Simon son of Jonah, you (Simon Peter) are a blessed man! Because it was no human agency that revealed this to you (Simon Peter) but my Father in heaven.
18 So I now say to you (Simon Peter) : You (Simon Peter) are Peter (Simon Peter) and on this rock (Simon Peter) I will build my community. And the gates of the underworld can never overpower it.
19 I will give you (Simon Peter) the keys of the kingdom of Heaven: whatever you (Simon Peter) bind on earth will be bound in heaven; whatever you (Simon Peter) loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’
20 **Then he gave the disciples strict orders ** not to say to anyone that he was the Christ.

Notice what the Bible says. Does it say Jesus talked to Peter and Disciples? If so then everyone is Peter and everyone has keys and we’re all free to start our own unshakable communities on ourselves. That’s not how I read it, I see that Jesus talked to Peter alone, and it wasn’t until that conversation was over that he “Then gave the disciples” instruction.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

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.

I know that Peter ordained a Bishop at Antioch (today it’s called Damascus, in Syria) before moving on to Rome. I’m almost sure (but need confirmation from someone better educated) that Peter also ordained Mark as a Bishop, and then Mark ordained a Bishop successor in Alexandria (which is in Egypt). Then, Peter chose Linus as his successor, as Pope in Rome.

Peter, in his own understanding, was wearing two hats. On the one hand, he was one of the 12 Apostles, and as such, he ordained more than one successor. However, on the other hand, he and all the Apostles regarded his role as Rock and Keybearer as something distinct, and in that role, Peter was succeded by Linus only and nobody else. Then, Linus was succeeded by Cletus (also called Anacletus), Cletus by Clement, and so on. We reach the time of Pope St. Clement, the fourth in the Peter-Linus-Cletus-Clement line, pretty fast because Peter and all his successors were killed by the Roman Empire. Around the year 85 A.D., St. Clement is pope, and the Apostle John is still alive. This is a mere 50 years after Jesus’ ministry. And apparently Peter felt that he needed one single successor in that specific role, that’s why he chose Linus alone. There was a Bishop in Antioch and yet another in Alexandria who succeeded Peter as Bishop, but only Linus and Linus alone succeeded him as that singular person who was chosen as Rock, and bearer of the Keys.

Also, all the other Apostles don’t seem to disagree with Peter’s vision. Pope St. Clement intervenes in his specific role as Pope, to settle a dispute in Corinth. And the Apostle John, still alive at this time, does not protest Clement’s role. Nobody protests Clement’s role. Both Peter himself, the 12 Apostles, and the early Church in the first century regarded Peter’s unique role as something that needed to be preserved and passed on, always to only one successor at a time, without spreading it to a plural number of successors.

To me, Peter’s role makes a lot of sense even today, 2000 years later. Jesus told Peter, “whatever you bind on Earth, will be bound in Heaven, whatever you loosen on Earth, will be loosened in Heaven”. Period. No strings attached, no ifs and buts. So, let’s see what happens today when some Bishops want to forbid, while others want to permit the use of birth control pills and abortions. There may be a disagreement, but Peter’s judgment, and in this case the judgment of his successor, is final and binding. He received the power to bind and loosen, no strings attached, he doesn’t need the other Apostles’ (the other Bishops’ ) approval for that.

Today we have a bunch of EO (Eastern Orthodox) Bishops who permit artificial birth control (ABC), and a bunch of Catholic Bishops who forbid it. So, who’s right and who’s wrong? Peter received the authority to settle such disputes, because his decision is binding, even if not all Apostles agree with him. And the Pope’s decision is binding, even if not all the Bishops agree with him. Pope Paul VI used that authority, and reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s 2000-year ban on contraception, in his encyclical Humanae Vitae in 1968. Not all Catholic Bishops were happy with his teaching, but they fell in line, and accepted that Pope Paul VI is Peter’s successor who received the keys to Heaven, who has authority to bind and loose, who’s the Rock on which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.

Meanwhile, the Eastern Orthodox Churches followed the lead of the Anglican Church’s Lambeth Conference of 1930, and started allowing ABC after forbidding it for 19 centuries in a row. From a Catholic standpoint, the EO Bishops have fallen into error, and allowed the Gates of Hell to prevail in their teachings. From a Catholic standpoint, the EO Bishops should have stayed faithful to the teachings of Peter’s successor the Pope, because Peter received this promise of infallibility (the promise that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church built on him), whereas the other Apostles (other Bishops) did not receive that promise. The Popes reaffirmed the Catholic Church’s constant teaching against ABC twice in the 20th century, first Pope Pius XI in Castii Connubii (1930), then Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae (1968). Anyone who listened to Peter’s successor and obeyed his teaching was protected from the Gates of Hell prevailing against him. And those who refused to listen to Peter’s successor, have fallen into grave error, and the Gates of Hell prevailed against them in a certain sense. This is a practical example of how the role of Peter is as relevant as ever today, according to Catholic opinion.

 

[pablope]

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.

Hi, Irish…I would suggest you contact the nearest Catholic Parish where you live and set up an appointment with the parish priest, this is one option.

Another is to call the parish and inquire on their RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), and classes should begin sometime in september. This is a class setting with other adults who plan on converting or joining the CC, who receive instruction about the teachings of the CC. You can ask questions here too. This is the route most take. They may also be able to put you in contact with the RCIA director if you have questions or concerns.

If you also want to bet ahead, you can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains all the CC’s teachings. And you can ask questions here on CAF too.

God bless and you will be in our prayers.

 

[Cavaradossi]

1. 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.

That’s not the Orthodox position. Firstly , Antioch is considered to be a successor of Peter (St. Gregory the Great actually even considers Alexandria to be a successor of Peter, because Mark was a disciple of Peter). Secondly, all bishops are invested with Peter’s powers (the power to bind and loose and the keys). Peter has a special position among the apostles (along with Paul), but his special position is not limited to any one See, rather it is a power which is possessed by the Church as a whole. This is why there was no need to appoint another successor to Peter after the schism: the Eastern Christians did not view the succession of Peter being limited to one place but rather being the property of the whole Church; one of the lineages of bishops claiming succession from Peter leaving the Church was of no real concern to them.

 

[mark_a]

(St. Gregory the Great actually even considers Alexandria to be a successor of Peter, because Mark was a disciple of Peter).

From the Orthodox point of view, is there a difference between “a” successor of Peter and “the” successor of Peter? Or is there any distinction at all?

Thanks.

 

[jam070406]

That’s not the Orthodox position. Firstly , Antioch is considered to be a successor of Peter (St. Gregory the Great actually even considers Alexandria to be a successor of Peter, because Mark was a disciple of Peter). Secondly, all bishops are invested with Peter’s powers (the power to bind and loose and the keys). Peter has a special position among the apostles (along with Paul), but his special position is not limited to any one See, rather it is a power which is possessed by the Church as a whole. This is why there was no need to appoint another successor to Peter after the schism: the Eastern Christians did not view the succession of Peter being limited to one place but rather being the property of the whole Church; one of the lineages of bishops claiming succession from Peter leaving the Church was of no real concern to them.

Gregory certainly knew his role as Successor of St. Peter.
He even asked, who doesn’t know that Constantinople is subordinate to Rome?

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Blessings my brother in Christ. Unfortunately I have to disagree about universal jurisdiction. Being the only one who received the keys from God alone has a lot of implications and more than mere honor.

Hello my friend Nicea,
Hope you are well.

Yes I am very well…thank you.

Ok, let’s say it is more than just a primacy of honor. Why was this not recognized in the early Church?

My dear friend, it is mentioned by countless early church fathers the importance of Peter an his successors. Granted, the term 'infallibility" is not mentioned or discussed extensively. However, neither were many of the doctrines discussed in great detail until centuries later. Doctrinal development is the key to comprehension.Peter is mentioned as the Head and Prince Apostle. Likewise, the letter of Clement to the Corinthians does have some implications of universal jurisdiction. It may not be elaborate or exhaustive but it most certainly does indicate the Roman bishop did have serious weight. The question which should be asked is this:

If the Roman bishop had no authority outside his jurisdiction and based on mere “honor”,then where are the complaints and protests from bishops outside of Rome? Why didn’t the bishop of the Corinthian Church not rebuke the Roman bishop? I find it very strange and odd not one bishop states Clement has no say on matters outside his jurisdiction. Likewise,the letter was read throughout the liturgies and almost made the final cut of the canon. If it was considered to be out-of-line by Clement,I seriously doubt it would have been read at any liturgy.

Why is it that the Council of Nicea determines it necessary to identify the jurisdictions of the various sees, including the see in Rome?

Indeed every See has jurisdiction wthin its own respective region;however,the Council,if I am correct also never ratified a canon stating Rome absolutely cannot get involved in the affairs of other Sees. On the contrary,there are several cases where leading bishops take serious matters to Rome. Why weren’t those matters settled in-house? If anything, if one wants to accuse of any See going outside their jurisdiction it is others.

I’ve read some of the links provided in similar threads and still can’t wrap my head around this one glaring flaw, as I see it, in the claim of universal jurisdiction (notice, here, I’m speaking about Tradition, and not scripture alone).

Actually on the contrary, I see it very clear other Sees wanted Rome to settle deep serious issues. Again,if Rome had no universal jurisdiction and is merely “honor” then why even bother travelling hundreds of miles to let the Roman bishop settle the matter? Why not just go to the nearest See or bishop? The whole notion of “honor” and “first among equals” is the position begging to be proved by the early church. How can one be “first” and yet be an equal? Either one is an equal or is preeminent to be called…first.

And there seems to me no way to inferr infallibility (ex cathedra) in Peter’s reception of the Keys (even if one interprets this as Peter’s alone, and not the whole Church), and again, nothing in the Tradition of the early Church to imply such.

What about Peter’s two epistles? Are they infallible or fallible? Did the church have to practically need to “yell” out infallibility to prove a point? Something does not necessarily need to be described in great detail or explicit in order to make legit or true. Case in point,the doctrines of the Trinity,Incarnation and canon.

You’re one of the guys I trust here, so I know you won’t be offended by the sharp nature of my post.

Jon

My friend, we may not agree on many issues,but through prayer and dialogue we can learn from each other and hopefully lead to unity.

God Bless you my friend.

 

[CopticChristian]

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.

Try asking an apologist as part of this forum. Try the search engine and read the articles that pop up for your questions.

 

[garysibio]

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.

This is pure speculation but Nathaniel made his statement in responce to a miracle that Jesus did; Peter, otoh, was passing on what God revealed to him without any signs involved. Like I said, speculation.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hello my friend Nicea,
Hope you are well.

Ok, let’s say it is more than just a primacy of honor. Why was this not recognized in the early Church? Why is it that the Council of Nicea determines it necessary to identify the jurisdictions of the various sees, including the see in Rome? I’ve read some of the links provided in similar threads and still can’t wrap my head around this one glaring flaw, as I see it, in the claim of universal jurisdiction (notice, here, I’m speaking about Tradition, and not scripture alone).
And there seems to me no way to inferr infallibility (ex cathedra) in Peter’s reception of the Keys (even if one interprets this as Peter’s alone, and not the whole Church), and again, nothing in the Tradition of the early Church to imply such.

You’re one of the guys I trust here, so I know you won’t be offended by the sharp nature of my post.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I often read your contention that Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea proves that Rome had no special jurisdiction. This is an interpretation with which the Catholic Church does not agree. You’re entitled to it, of course, but I’m sure you recognize that it’s only an opinion. For a different POV, go here:

catholicnick.blogspot.com/search/label/Papacy

Nick, the blogger, refers to a longer article concerning Canon 6 on line, which I have read and recommend. Warning: It’s written by a Jesuit.

Your position (and that of others) that there is no infallibility in the Church means that there is no capital “T” Truth in Christianity. It is a guessing game, with no ultimate answers. So why bother? That was what I believed when I was an agnostic and an atheist. Now I believe it’s true only of Protestantism.

Peace be with you, Jon,

Jim Dandy

 

[lyrikal]

This is pure speculation but Nathaniel made his statement in responce to a miracle that Jesus did; Peter, otoh, was passing on what God revealed to him without any signs involved. Like I said, speculation.

Hi Garysibio,

Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You said that “Peter, otoh, was passing on what God revealed to him without any signs involved.” I don’t think that argument holds any water. The reason why I think this is because Peter saw more miracles than Nathanael did. Nathanael saw one small miracle and professed that Jesus is the Son of God. Peter (and also the other Apostles) saw many, many miracles prior to Peter professing that Jesus is the Son of God before Peter professed it.

God bless you, brother.

Btw, I am still waiting for an Orthodox and/or Protestant who thinks the Rock is Peter’s confession to reply to my original post. I appreciate any (name removed by moderator)ut on the matter.

Thank you.

 

[CEM5]

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.

Hello Irishmen,

Bless the Lord that you will “take a leap of faith”!! To get more answers the first thing I would suggest is to contact a Roman Catholic Parish (there are some “Catholic” churches that use the name, but are not RC - they are Protestant parishes.). You could join RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults); it is a journey for those who wish to learn more of the teachings and Faith of the Church, or for those who wish to receive full communion with the Church. If you attend a Mass you could let the Priest know of your desire to learn more. Confession is a Sacrament and is for those who have received this Sacrament of Reconciliation.

RCIA is for anyone, regardless of “faith” who have a sincere desire to learn more and the first journey is the “Inquiry” part in which one decides after the initial weeks, if they want to continue this program (or “journey” of faith). The fundamentals of the Faith are taught and explained, and questions are most welcomed! Nothing is “hidden” or forbidden from asking.

Blessings of God and His Holy Spirit through Christ Jesus to you,

CEM

 

[CEM5]

Hi, Irish…I would suggest you contact the nearest Catholic Parish where you live and set up an appointment with the parish priest, this is one option.

Another is to call the parish and inquire on their RCIA (Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults), and classes should begin sometime in september. This is a class setting with other adults who plan on converting or joining the CC, who receive instruction about the teachings of the CC. You can ask questions here too. This is the route most take. They may also be able to put you in contact with the RCIA director if you have questions or concerns.

If you also want to bet ahead, you can read the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which contains all the CC’s teachings. And you can ask questions here on CAF too.

God bless and you will be in our prayers.

Oh hi pablope,

Sorry! I am reading the posts and then answering before reading ALL the posts so I just came across your answer.

I apologize for the redundancy of my post which says pretty much what you have already said.

blessings,

CEM

 

[Irishmen10]

Hello Irishmen,

Bless the Lord that you will “take a leap of faith”!! To get more answers the first thing I would suggest is to contact a Roman Catholic Parish (there are some “Catholic” churches that use the name, but are not RC - they are Protestant parishes.). You could join RCIA (Rite of Catholic Initiation for Adults); it is a journey for those who wish to learn more of the teachings and Faith of the Church, or for those who wish to receive full communion with the Church. If you attend a Mass you could let the Priest know of your desire to learn more. Confession is a Sacrament and is for those who have received this Sacrament of Reconciliation.

RCIA is for anyone, regardless of “faith” who have a sincere desire to learn more and the first journey is the “Inquiry” part in which one decides after the initial weeks, if they want to continue this program (or “journey” of faith). The fundamentals of the Faith are taught and explained, and questions are most welcomed! Nothing is “hidden” or forbidden from asking.

Blessings of God and His Holy Spirit through Christ Jesus to you,

CEM

Thank you! and God Bless

 

[Steadfast_love]

By the way, Catholics are free to choose churches that are outside our neighborhoods so feel free to look around for a parish that suits you.

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;8226307]Hi Jon,

I often read your contention that Canon 6 of the Council of Nicea proves that Rome had no special jurisdiction. This is an interpretation with which the Catholic Church does not agree. You’re entitled to it, of course, but I’m sure you recognize that it’s only an opinion. For a different POV, go here:

My friend Jim,
I think you misunderstand my contention. It isn’t that I believe Rome has no special jurisdiction. The canon actually sets a jurisdiction - that being the western. What it doesn’t say is that Rome has universal jurisdiction. If the early Church had believed the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, it would follow that, a) the council would have said so, or b) it would not have felt the need to state his jurisidiction at all, or c) it certainly would not have set a specific jurisdiction less than that of the west.

Your position (and that of others) that there is no infallibility in the Church means that there is no capital “T” Truth in Christianity. It is a guessing game, with no ultimate answers. So why bother? That was what I believed when I was an agnostic and an atheist. Now I believe it’s true only of Protestantism.

Well, whether or not there is an infallible human entity in the Church would not exclude the actual existence of Truth. From my perspective the authority to determine that Truth is in question because the sees are divided.

Peace be with you, Jon,

And also with you, Jim. I also appreciate the perspective and charity you and Nicea bring to our conversations. It is always my pleasure.

Jon

 

[adrift]

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.

Of all the interpretations I have seen this is the most strained and least thought out. Randomly taking verses that refer to Jesus being the rock does not then mean every reference to rock is Jesus. To say that Jesus is referring to Himself as the rock does violence to the verse. Jesus does not say I am the Rock that I will build My Church upon. No He renames Simon always an important event in the Bible, which only happened to four people in the Bible, and gives Peter the keys. You treat the fact that Cephas means rock as an accident of no consequence. There is no way that Jesus is referring to Himself.

 

[CEM5]

That’s not the Orthodox position. Firstly , Antioch is considered to be a successor of Peter (St. Gregory the Great actually even considers Alexandria to be a successor of Peter, because Mark was a disciple of Peter). Secondly, all bishops are invested with Peter’s powers (the power to bind and loose and the keys). Peter has a special position among the apostles (along with Paul), but his special position is not limited to any one See, rather it is a power which is possessed by the Church as a whole. This is why there was no need to appoint another successor to Peter after the schism: the Eastern Christians did not view the succession of Peter being limited to one place but rather being the property of the whole Church; one of the lineages of bishops claiming succession from Peter leaving the Church was of no real concern to them.

Well, it matters not what some other faiths “think”, but what history and even the Bible demonstrates to us.

The Keys were only given to Peter, and thereafter, Peter’s successors. A kingdom only has one holder of the keys, and on this ring of keys is the huge key that opens and closes the gate to the kingdom. There is also the key to the royal treasury. The trusted Royal Stewart (see my post explaining this position) held these for the king. Jesus gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

Matthew 16:19

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Jesus did not give the keys to all the Apostles. Later, when they were discussing what to do regarding someone who sins against “you”, and Church discipline, Jesus then gave this gift of binding and loosing to ALL the Apostles. No mention of keys. The first time this was mentioned, it was only to Peter who was bestowed by Jesus with two gifts or “power”.

Matthew 18:18

Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

This power of binding and loosing entails the permitting (loosing) and the forbidding (binding) of things such as attitudes (good and bad), disciplinary actions against members of the Church, the power to excommunicate or reinstate…dealing with the sins of the Church members (to forgive or not forgive was included by Jesus). Early Church Fathers Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen taught this.

John 20:
22 When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Not only Bishops have this power of binding and loosing, but all validly ordained Priests. Only Peter and his successors hold the keys which are passed on after the death of the holder of the keys to that one individual who has succeeded/inherited those keys as the successor.

blessings,
CEM

 

[Jim_Dandy]

My friend Jim,
I think you misunderstand my contention. It isn’t that I believe Rome has no special jurisdiction. The canon actually sets a jurisdiction - that being the western. What it doesn’t say is that Rome has universal jurisdiction. If the early Church had believed the Bishop of Rome had universal jurisdiction, it would follow that, a) the council would have said so, or b) it would not have felt the need to state his jurisidiction at all, or c) it certainly would not have set a specific jurisdiction less than that of the west.

Well, whether or not there is an infallible human entity in the Church would not exclude the actual existence of Truth. From my perspective the authority to determine that Truth is in question because the sees are divided.

And also with you, Jim. I also appreciate the perspective and charity you and Nicea bring to our conversations. It is always my pleasure.

Jon

:tiphat: My regards to you, Jon. It is a great pleasure to know you and to be able to rub elbows – and sometimes knuckes – with you.

I understood your point. The link I provided defends universal jurisdiction and argues that Canon 6 of Nicea does not deal with that question at all, contrary to what I understand your opinion (and that of the EOs) to be.

Here’s a longer academic treatment of the issue of the meaning of Canon 6 (this one is written by the Jesuit I mentioned).

bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

Peace be with you, Jon.

Jim Dandy

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lyrikal,

This is an excellent post - and I really appreciate having read it.

God bless

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.