MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

You certainly have impressive footwork!! I just do not remember the last time I saw someone dance around so many issue on a single post!

It has everything to do with it.

Mickey, you job is to tell exactly HOW or WHY you think this Eph 2:19-22 scripture has ANYTHING TO DO WITH MATTER. So, just spell out what you mean so I have a chance to reflect on it… and then refute it

God chose all the Apostles to the lead the Church.
This gets tricky, Mickey, in that the Apostles formed the core, those who were with them on Petecost and received the Holy Spirit formed a tight (outer?) ring around them and then we all all of the souls who were converted to the Catholic Faith. The these members spread out spreading the Gospel - and yes, I guess you could say they were real leaders in this reagard. But, the issue is the Primacy of Peter as the Rock that Christ chose for the foundation (with Him as the Cornerstone) that is the subject of this discussion.

St Peter’s name was changed to show the importance of His confession of faith.

Mickey, it appears that you have used an industrial strength strainer to remove what you consider a gnat. The name change took place a considerable time before Peter’s confession, there were numerous other examples of Peter taking the lead, speaking for the Apostles, being identified by Christ for a special role ("…feed my lambs…"). The reason for the name change can not be attributed to a single event as you are claiming.

Yes. The Sons of Thunder were there also.
Yet this does not mean that Christ loved the others any less.

Have you noticed that not all of the Apostles have something written about them in the scriptures? There was not an even distribution - like 1/12 for each of them. This is not to say that they all did not play an important role - the role known to God from all Eternity. But, certain Apostles certain got more ink - and Peter got the lion’s share of it! Did you ever wonder why?

Now you are reaching.

Actually, Mickey, this is just one example of when Christ singles out Peter from the other Apostles and honors or recognizes Peter in a special way. The take home message which you seem to be evading is that Peter received all of these special recognitions in front of the other Apostles for a reason - Christ had chosen him as the Leader.

]
St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ…now.

Would it really hurt you to say that THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE OTHER APOSTLES HAVING RECEIVED KEYS? Truly, Mickey, this shows a bias that is painfully obvious to others if not yourself. Additionally, St. John Chrysosotom has a lot going for him - but, guess what, he could not find where the other Apostles got a set of Keys, either.

Christ said, “I will give you the keys…” And he did….along with the others when the power to bind and loose was received by Christ’s breath.

Are you writing your own Bible, Mickey? Those verses do not appear together such as you have placed them. As I see it, you are really straying from simply intellectual honesty here. You are inventing how this came about - and it does not reflect what is written.

Are you a solo Scripturist?

What are the options, Mickey, SS or invent your own as you are doing?! No, I accept the teaching of the Mageisterium.

All the Apostles are in charge of Christ’s Church….with Christ as the Head.

I guess you are referring to a Council of the Church, Mickey? Is this what you mean? You see the Early Church Fathers (and that would be both East and West) saw no problem with the Successor of Peter being in charge. In my estimation, this cuts right through that industrial strength strainer you have been using to void out Matt 16:18.

LOL! He did not say that.

Here is what he really wrote:

Iam enim de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad Sedem Apostolicam; inde etiam rescripta venerunt. Causa finita est; utinam finiatur error!

“For already on this matter two councils have sent to the Apostolic See, whence also rescripts have come back from there. The case is ended; would that the error may end likewise!”

That industrial strength filter of yours has been hard at work! Yes, I used a paraphrase - here is a link that will clearly identify that Augustine recognized Rome’s authority to resolve the matter: americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/romalocuta_article.htm But, you know what - and, dare I say more imporltantly, there was NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER WHO DISPUTED THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER - and the man occupying that Chair today is Benedict XVI.

God bless

 

[elvisman]

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.
Christ is in charge.

**And then, John ran and hid like the rest. **
**Another interesting thing about John - he was never the earthly head of the Church like Peter and his successors. **

**In fact, when John was still alive, we have the Letter of Clement, circa A.D. 85, in which he is making a Papal decision over a matter in Corinth. Although John was alive at the time, it was not he who was in charge, but the successor of Peter. **

You’re right - Jesus IS in charge. He can leave anybody he wants to watch over his flock until his return - and he chose Peter for that task.

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.
**Wrong. Read the text. **
Jesus is praying for Peter to strenghten the rest because they would ALL lose faith.
**Luke 22:31-32
"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers." **

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Elvisman.

Great post!

I think what I find most troubeling about Mickey’s posts is that they so much like the garden variety Protestant arguments I have heard so often. There is simply an expressed and apparent inability to comprehend what is actually written in their own Bible.

God bless

elvisman:
**And then, John ran and hid like the rest. **
**Another interesting thing about John - he was never the earthly head of the Church like Peter and his successors. **

**In fact, when John was still alive, we have the Letter of Clement, circa A.D. 85, in which he is making a Papal decision over a matter in Corinth. Although John was alive at the time, it was not he who was in charge, but the successor of Peter. **

You’re right - Jesus IS in charge. He can leave anybody he wants to watch over his flock until his return - and he chose Peter for that task.

Wrong. Read the text.
Jesus is praying for Peter to strenghten the rest because they would ALL lose faith.
**Luke 22:31-32
**"Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you (plural) like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) own faith may not fail; and once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brothers."

 

[benedictus2]

Please do not turn this into a stone throwing thread.

That was not stone throwing.

My point there is about history. You said something like “according to our version of history.”

Now while everyone seems to know the information and mis information about what the Catholic Church did and did not do, members of other faith seem be unaware of the not so pleasant aspect of theirs.

A Greek friend of mine told me that the schism was due to the iconoclasm where according to her the Western Church destroyed icons in the Eastern Church. I still have not got around to give her material to show her how wrong she is.

 

[adrift]

I have defended my stance through Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. Will you now be using insults to defend yours?

No you have not. You have used insults but I guess you can’t take what you dish out.
What you consider insult is your own words.

We have refuted your stance through Holy Tradition and Sacred Scripture. You come back with insults. You still haven’t given a credible explanation for the name change or the Keys to heaven. Most as others have pointed out are week arguments.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

You are so right - GOD IS IN CHARGE. In fact, like the song goes, He has the whole world in His Hands!

Christ is in charge.

I guess the problem I am having with your responsses is that in addition to them being terse, they are imprecise. Did you think anyone on CAF was doubting that God was in charge? If not, what point are you trying to make? Just mark this up to my density … and then please answer the question so that even I can understand it…

Since we really all agree that God is in charge, do you see a problem with Christ actually appointing a sinful, loud-mouth fisherman to be the visible head of the Chruch until Christ returns in Glory to judge the living and the dead? It really seems that God has a real inclination to show us how Powerful He Is by working through weak humans (and Peter probably went to great lengths to prove that point!!) so that He and not us get all of the Glory.

You see, personally, since we both believe that the Consecrated Host has the accidents of bread, but has the reality of Jesus Christ - Body, Blood, Human Soul and Divinity, I do not see why we both can not also agree on Christ appointing someone to lead His Church once He rose into Heaven. I mean just on the face of it, does Christ have that Power?

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mickey,

I think this would be a good time to take a deep breath and exhale slowly while counting to ten.

I have defended my stance through Sacred Scripture and Holy Tradition. Will you now be using insults to defend yours?

In my opinin, Adrift was just making an observation on the obvious… I challenged you about the Keys you said every Apostle got - not just Peter - and you ask my if I am a Sola Scriptura believer? What kind of response was that? The thrust of the argument was focused on Matt 16:18 - for starters, and you become defensive.

I previously mentioned that your evasions are troublesome to me - and, it is not that I am new at this and thought that others have never tried to evade a question … but, you are Orthodox … you have many (but not all) things going for you. But it appears that you are subverting the Truth of Scripture and lash out when this brought to your attention.

Simply stated, you can not dance around an issue (evade) and then complain when this is pointed out to you. Surley you can do better than what we have seen! Come on, give it a try and do so with an open mind!! The idea of quoting Scripture to prove a point makes no sense if you cut and paste in and effort to make the Scripture say something it didn’t. May I recommend that you actually give the citation for these eleven other sets of keys from Scripture.

Concerning Apostolic Tradition and the influence of the Early Church Fathers. A passing remark form St. John is hardly compelling. What would really be needed is that sometime during the roughly first 500 years of the Catholic Church (33AD - 500AD) there was evidence of Apostles rebelling agianst Peter’s Authority, that the ECF wrote long and hard about how Christ did not put Peter in charge, and that there was a definitive revelation from the Holy Spirit that Peter (and his Successors) were not the visible head of the Church.

Thrash around as you will with Rock/rock or any other hair splitting - and you are still left with this incredible history of the Popes - the Bishops of Rome continuing in the footsteps of the Fisherman.

Your challenge is to respond not only without insult, but in an effective and disciplined manner. Now, meet this challenge and let’s see what you can do.

God bless

 

[benedictus2]

Christ is in charge.

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

Nope it is so much more than that.

You are right, Christ is in Charge. And who does Christ who is in Charge put in charge of His sheep?

There is no way getting around that fact because that is exactly how scripture had it.

Sure the three affirmation is also so that Peter can turn around his 3 fold denial.

But think about this, He could have asked Peter three times do you love me and left it at that.

But instead of doing just that. He followed each of Peter’s answers with an entrusting of His sheep to him.

You seem to be rather passionate of your denial of Peter’s primacy. Why is that when for the first 1000 years everyone agreed that Peter was the Prime bishop.

As a matter of fact, the reason Antioch was considered one of the prime sees was because Peter founded this see.

 

[Lapey]

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.
Christ is in charge.

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

How can we have been so wrong, for so long??? So, Jesus was not establishing the Shepherd for the flock, He was saving the meek and dumb Peter from suicide.

Wow, how could we have missed it for so long?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Lapey,

This got by me, too! But, somehow calling Peter ‘meek’ is not a characteristic I would have attributed to him…

By the way, has anyone seen Mickey …? I certainly hope he has not ‘checked-out’ too!

God bless

How can we have been so wrong, for so long??? So, Jesus was not establishing the Shepherd for the flock, He was saving the meek and dumb Peter from suicide.

Wow, how could we have missed it for so long?

 

[pablope]

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.
Christ is in charge.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

St Peter denied Him three times.

 

[pablope]

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.
Christ is in charge.

COLOR]

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

Jesus Christ knows that St Peter is about to deny Him thrice. He prays for him so that his faith may not fail–so that he does not fall into despair and hang himself like Judas. Then of course we see Jesus Christ restoring St Peter’s Apostolic standing at the end of St John’s Gospel–the triple affirmation for the triple denial–because St Peter wept and repented instead of falling into despair and suicide.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pablope,

I don’t think Mickey is with us any more… ! Maybe it was something we said…

God bless

Mickey;7383008:

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.

Christ is in charge.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

Just another thing missed about Peter.

Yes, though Peter denied him three times, notice that among the Apostles, he was the only one in the courtyard or place where Jesus was brought to after the arrest in Gethsemane.

What Peter being there at the courtyard is another of his traits…his bravery and courage……for he was the only one brave and courageous enough to even come close within sight of the guards. Take note too that the HS has not come upon him and the other Apostles, yet he already displayed his courage. Of course, he was noticed and his subsequent denial, which was his moment of weakness.

But Jesus looked beyond his weakness and denial, Jesus looked at Peter’s heart, and his bravery and courage demonstrated here, as traits that would serve Peter well in the role chosen to Him by Jesus, to lead and build his church.

Just my 2cents worth.

 

[adrift]

Mickey;7383008:

Of course. But then St John was there with Our Lady and St Peter denied Him three times.

Christ is in charge.

Exactly. A wonderful lesson to us on repentance and forgiveness.

Just another thing missed about Peter.

Yes, though Peter denied him three times, notice that among the Apostles, he was the only one in the courtyard or place where Jesus was brought to after the arrest in Gethsemane.

What Peter being there at the courtyard is another of his traits…his bravery and courage……for he was the only one brave and courageous enough to even come close within sight of the guards. Take note too that the HS has not come upon him and the other Apostles, yet he already displayed his courage. Of course, he was noticed and his subsequent denial, which was his moment of weakness.

But Jesus looked beyond his weakness and denial, Jesus looked at Peter’s heart, and his bravery and courage demonstrated here, as traits that would serve Peter well in the role chosen to Him by Jesus, to lead and build his church.

Just my 2cents worth.

What a good observation:thumbsup:

 

[benedictus2]

How can we have been so wrong, for so long??? So, Jesus was not establishing the Shepherd for the flock, He was saving the meek and dumb Peter from suicide.

Wow, how could we have missed it for so long?

We have all been so dumb. Let’s hang our heads in shame

 

[benedictus2]

Just another thing missed about Peter.

Yes, though Peter denied him three times, notice that among the Apostles, he was the only one in the courtyard or place where Jesus was brought to after the arrest in Gethsemane.

What Peter being there at the courtyard is another of his traits…his bravery and courage……for he was the only one brave and courageous enough to even come close within sight of the guards. Take note too that the HS has not come upon him and the other Apostles, yet he already displayed his courage. Of course, he was noticed and his subsequent denial, which was his moment of weakness.

But Jesus looked beyond his weakness and denial, Jesus looked at Peter’s heart, and his bravery and courage demonstrated here, as traits that would serve Peter well in the role chosen to Him by Jesus, to lead and build his church.

Just my 2cents worth.

Hey that is a great point! Something to tuck away for future reference.

 

[pablope]

Hey that is a great point! Something to tuck away for future reference.

What a good observation:thumbsup:

Hi, Pablope,

I don’t think Mickey is with us any more… ! Maybe it was something we said…
God bless

Thank you…in all humility, I would credit this insight from the teaching of the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, together with the Written and Sacred Traditions, for pointing this out.

:grouphug:

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, you job is to tell exactly HOW or WHY you think this Eph 2:19-22 scripture has ANYTHING TO DO WITH MATTER. So, just spell out what you mean so I have a chance to reflect on it.

Read it….and reflect.

But, certain Apostles certain got more ink - and Peter got the lion’s share of it! Did you ever wonder why?

Are you saying that St Peter is above the others because he got more ink? Oh my!

The take home message which you seem to be evading is that Peter received all of these special recognitions in front of the other Apostles for a reason

Indeed! There are lessons with each Scriptural passage. But one of those lessons is not that St Peter was above the others. St Peter himself would be appalled at such a claim.

Would it really hurt you to say that THERE ARE NO REFERENCES TO THE OTHER APOSTLES HAVING RECEIVED KEYS?

On the contrary. The keys are linked with the authority to bind and loose.

Additionally, St. John Chrysosotom has a lot going for him -

Yes.

You are inventing how this came about

I am inventing nothing. It is called Sacred Tradition.

I accept the teaching of the Mageisterium.

I know.

You see the Early Church Fathers (and that would be both East and West) saw no problem with the Successor of Peter being in charge.

St James was in charge of the first Church council in the Book of Acts.

there was NO EARLY CHURCH FATHER WHO DISPUTED THE AUTHORITY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER

Of course not…nor the authority of the successors of the others.

-You certainly have impressive footwork
-it appears that you have used an industrial strength strainer to remove what you consider a gnat.
-Are you writing your own Bible, Mickey?
-That industrial strength filter of yours has been hard at work!
-I think what I find most troubeling about Mickey’s posts is that they so much like the garden variety Protestant arguments
-I think this would be a good time to take a deep breath and exhale slowly while counting to ten.
-Thrash around as you will

God bless

Your posts are laced with veiled insults and sarcasm. And then you have the audacity to end it with “God bless”. This seems less than sincere.

Besides, did you know that only a priest or bishop has the honour of bestowing a blessing by authority of his Holy Orders?

PS—It is very difficult to respond to you when you post inside the grey box. It would be great if you could respond in the proper manner. Thanks!

 

[Mickey]

And then, John ran and hid like the rest.

He was there at the Cross.

Another interesting thing about John - he was never the earthly head of the Church like Peter and his successors.

Earthly head? Whatever do you mean? Christ is the Head of the Church.

Jesus is praying for Peter to strenghten the rest because they would ALL lose faith.

Amen. But that does not tell us that St Peter is the supreme Apostle. He is also praying that St Peter does not fall into despair like Judas.

 

[Mickey]

A Greek friend of mine told me…

You surely do not want to know what some of my Roman Catholic friends have told me.