MOVED: Was Peter the Rock?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jesus700
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
yes i read through some of those references,

Thanks for that

The writings of those Saints about Peter encourage me to believe in the Catholic position of Peter

Say a prayer for me ,ive stopped praying and going to Church ,im sick of the whole thing between me being in between the Orthodox and Catholic Church,ive been baptised and confirmed by both Churches,
.
 
When Christ said to Peter “On this rock I will build my Church” ,the Orthodox Church doesn’t believe it was talking about Peter himself but on his confession of faith that Christ is the Son of God.

How do I know if the Catholic interpretation is correct that Peter himself is the rock that the Church will be built on being the Catholic Church.

I don’t know which Church to believe.
Hi Paul theApostle,

I will include you in my prayers and Mass intentions.

Let’s read John 1:40-42, followed by Matthew 16:16-18:

**40
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41
He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). **



**16
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. **

This is really very simple and straigthforward. Jesus renamed Simon the son of Jonah as Rock (Cephas in Aramaic, Peter in Greek), and established his Church on this person who was formerly named Simon and newly named Peter.

I find the Orthodox argument unconvincing. Why didn’t Jesus tell Simon, “Your confession is Peter and on this rock I will build my Church”? He didn’t tell him “your confession is Peter” but rather that “you are Peter”.

Moreover, if Jesus built his Church on a confession, did he also include the confession of demons and unclean spirits as the basis of his Church? After all, the demons and uclean spirits also knew who he was and confessed it. Jesus constantly had to tell these demons and unclean spirits to stay quiet, because he (Jesus) didn’t want his identity to be revealed prematurely. It is absurd to imagine Christ’s Church built on the confession of demons, yet this is where the Orthodox logic takes us.

There can be no doubt that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Rock-Cephas-Peter. See John 1: 42, quoted above. Interestingly, the first time Jesus met Simon, he prophesied that Simon’s name would be changed to Cephas. Moreover, in the extended quote below from St. John’s Gospel, Chapter 1, you can see that several people confessed that Jesus was the Messiah, starting with John the Baptist, and continuing with Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael. Yet, Jesus did not tell these people that they were Rock and that he was going to found His Church on them, or on their confession. Jesus singled out Simon, even though others also confessed that he was the Messiah. Moreover, not only John the Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathanael confessed that Jesus was the Messiah. Elsewhere in the Gospels, the demons and unclean spirits also confessed the same thing - that Jesus was the Messiah. Yet, Jesus didn’t tell any of the demons or unclean spirits that “you are Peter and on this rock I will establish my Church”. The Orthodox are denying the obvious and fail to give account of the fact that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Rock-Cephas-Peter, as foretold in John 1:42. Previously in the OT, Abram was renamed Abraham, Sarai was renamed Sarah, and Jacob was renamed Israel. In the NT, Simon was renamed Rock-Cephas-Peter. You should really examine the passage of Matthew 16:18 in light of John 1:42.
32
John testified further, saying, “I saw the Spirit come down like a dove from the sky and remain upon him.
33
I did not know him, but the one who sent me to baptize with water told me, ‘On whomever you see the Spirit come down and remain, he is the one who will baptize with the holy Spirit.’
34
Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God.”
35
The next day John was there again with two of his disciples,
36
and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, “Behold, the Lamb of God.”
37
The two disciples heard what he said and followed Jesus.
38
Jesus turned and saw them following him and said to them, “What are you looking for?” They said to him, “Rabbi” (which translated means Teacher), “where are you staying?”
39
He said to them,“Come, and you will see.” So they went and saw where he was staying, and they stayed with him that day. It was about four in the afternoon.
40
Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter, was one of the two who heard John and followed Jesus.
41
He first found his own brother Simon and told him, “We have found the Messiah” (which is translated Anointed).
42
Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter).
43
The next day he decided to go to Galilee, and he found Philip. And Jesus said to him, “Follow me.”
44
Now Philip was from Bethsaida, the town of Andrew and Peter.
45
Philip found Nathanael and told him, “We have found the one about whom Moses wrote in the law, and also the prophets, Jesus, son of Joseph, from Nazareth.”
46
But Nathanael said to him, “Can anything good come from Nazareth?” Philip said to him, “Come and see.”
47
Jesus saw Nathanael coming toward him and said of him, “Here is a true Israelite. There is no duplicity in him.”
48
Nathanael said to him, “How do you know me?” Jesus answered and said to him, “Before Philip called you, I saw you under the fig tree.”
49
Nathanael answered him, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel.”
 
Hi, PaultheApostle,

The post by Joseph Varga was excellent, and I would recommend you spend some additional time with that post.

My wife and I will include you in our prayers. 🙂

I am concerned about you saying you have stopped praying and going to Church. Nothing of benefit will happen if you abandon your prayer life. Besides, the mental picture I had was a guy at the bottom of a 100’ pit with all of these rescuers above him dangling ropes to pull him up - and he tells them he has given up on rope…because his rope broke. Grab on to the ropes being sent to you and renew your own personal prayer life.

Now, in reality a prayer life is best brought about by frequent reception of the Sacraments.

Ultimately, we are all called to follow Christ - and the best way to do this is to follow withing the loving arms of Holy Mother Church being lead by Benedict XVI.

Our prayers are with you - please join yours to ours.

God bless
yes i read through some of those references,

Thanks for that

The writings of those Saints about Peter encourage me to believe in the Catholic position of Peter

Say a prayer for me ,ive stopped praying and going to Church ,im sick of the whole thing between me being in between the Orthodox and Catholic Church,ive been baptised and confirmed by both Churches,
.
 
yes i read through some of those references,

Thanks for that

The writings of those Saints about Peter encourage me to believe in the Catholic position of Peter

Say a prayer for me ,ive stopped praying and going to Church ,im sick of the whole thing between me being in between the Orthodox and Catholic Church,ive been baptised and confirmed by both Churches,
.
Please continue to go to Church. I know at times it feels that you are sitting there for nothing. But I promise you if you continue to go, and pray for Gods Grace and continue to obey his commands (keep holy the Lords day) he will help you.

Please don’t stay away. Keep trying. ANd try until you succeed. And once this happens you can be a big help to others who are where you are today. I will pray for you also.
 
yes i read through some of those references,

Thanks for that

The writings of those Saints about Peter encourage me to believe in the Catholic position of Peter

Say a prayer for me ,ive stopped praying and going to Church ,im sick of the whole thing between me being in between the Orthodox and Catholic Church,ive been baptised and confirmed by both Churches,
.
Paul the A…i placed your name for a prayer intention for your continued trust in the Lord to guide you to His truth

In Joseph V’s post, I will focus on the name change and add a little bit:
The Orthodox are denying the obvious and fail to give account of the fact that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Rock-Cephas-Peter, as foretold in John 1:42. Previously in the OT, Abram was renamed Abraham, Sarai was renamed Sarah, and Jacob was renamed Israel. In the NT, Simon was renamed Rock-Cephas-Peter. You should really examine the passage of Matthew 16:18 in light of John 1:42.
In those times, the name of a person was important in describing the essence of the person, hence a person’s name was important. When a name is changed, it means a change in status, in authority, so name changing was important and also what new name was given the person.

Note the following notable name changes in the Bible and God’s command after the name change:

Abram to Abraham, God’s command to Abraham was to be the Father of nations.

Jacob to Israel-God’s command to Israle was to build the nation of Israel

Simon to Cephas/Peter-God/Jesus’ command-to build His Church.

In the case of Peter, note that even St Paul refers to him as Cephas in his Epistles.

Another I would like to point out, there is even divine confirmation of Peter’s name change after the resurrection:

Mark 16:

5Entering the tomb, they saw a young man sitting at the right, wearing a white robe; and they were amazed.

6And he said to them, "Do not be amazed; you are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who has been crucified He has risen; He is not here; behold, here is the place where they laid Him.

7"But go, tell His disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you to Galilee; there you will see Him, just as He told you.’"

Note how the angel mentions the disciples, but only names Peter. But he does not call him Simon, the angel calls Simon by his new name-Peter/Cephas…so Heaven has also acknowledged the name change.
 
first off, his name was not peter, the name Jesus gave simon is “kephas” or “cephas”. Go look these up. these two words and this debate was what catapulted me into the direction of the church i stated i would NEVER convert to. I have now been in full communion for 13 years and am at home. john 1:42
 
I can’t say one way or the other what Jesus was meaning in his context as Peter as the foundation on which the church was built and am not because I am afraid of passing judgement. I can say that through papal infallibility we have recieved many beliefs that I share and we share universally, for example, the Immaculate Conception among many others. I personally loved the fact that the Catholic Church is universal. If it wasnt we would be endanger of losing many sacrements and the apostalistic doctines that have tied our church together since pentacost would be lost forever. I have much love and the upmost respect for Benedict and all the other popes before him for a leader for our church through these rough times in being a Catholic.
 
first off, his name was not peter, the name Jesus gave simon is “kephas” or “cephas”. Go look these up. these two words and this debate was what catapulted me into the direction of** the church i stated i would NEVER convert to**. I have now been in full communion for 13 years and am at home. john 1:42
LOL… (what I bolded) 😃

Yeah, the whole petros-petra argument is a total waste of time. Jesus did not use any of those Greek words. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for Rock is Kephas (or Cephas). Petros and Petra are the Greek translations for Rock (English) or Kephas (Aramaic), and suggesting that Jesus spoke about Petros (small pebble) and Petra (big rock), using some Greek wordplay to draw a distinction between Peter the Pebble and himself the Rock, are simply the mindproducts of some people who are not aware that Jesus did not speak those words in Greek language, in the first place! :doh2:
 
Hi, Clay84,

Here is an item from Revelations 3:14-16 you may find of interest: **

14
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: " 'The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this:
15
"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot.
16
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. **

As I see it, the section in Matthew 16 is more of simple reading comprehension rather than actual decision making or commitment. Just read what is there. Does it sound like Christ is being ambiguous about Peter’s leadership when He gave Peter the Keys and power to bind and lose? I don’t.

And, should you have any doubt, go to John 21 where the Resurrected Lord tells Peter three times to feed His lambs and tend His sheep. Well, we know that Christ was a carpenter not a shepherd by trade - so there was no flock of actual sheep grazing over a nearby hill. Christ was repeating the commission He had given to Peter to lead the Chruch that Christ had built on him.

Ultimately, we are all called to take a position (make a judgment) on Christ and the Church He founded. The chruch in Laodicia was not made up of ‘bad’ people - just people who did not want to get involved by making a judgment for Christ.

God bless
I can’t say one way or the other what Jesus was meaning in his context as Peter as the foundation on which the church was built and am not because I am afraid of passing judgement. I can say that through papal infallibility we have recieved many beliefs that I share and we share universally, for example, the Immaculate Conception among many others. I personally loved the fact that the Catholic Church is universal. If it wasnt we would be endanger of losing many sacrements and the apostalistic doctines that have tied our church together since pentacost would be lost forever. I have much love and the upmost respect for Benedict and all the other popes before him for a leader for our church through these rough times in being a Catholic.
 
Hi, Clay84,

Here is an item from Revelations 3:14-16 you may find of interest: **

14
"To the angel of the church in Laodicea, write this: " 'The Amen, the faithful and true witness, the source of God’s creation, says this:
15
"I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot.
16
So, because you are lukewarm, neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth. **

As I see it, the section in Matthew 16 is more of simple reading comprehension rather than actual decision making or commitment. Just read what is there. Does it sound like Christ is being ambiguous about Peter’s leadership when He gave Peter the Keys and power to bind and lose? I don’t.

And, should you have any doubt, go to John 21 where the Resurrected Lord tells Peter three times to feed His lambs and tend His sheep. Well, we know that Christ was a carpenter not a shepherd by trade - so there was no flock of actual sheep grazing over a nearby hill. Christ was repeating the commission He had given to Peter to lead the Chruch that Christ had built on him.

Ultimately, we are all called to take a position (make a judgment) on Christ and the Church He founded. The chruch in Laodicia was not made up of ‘bad’ people - just people who did not want to get involved by making a judgment for Christ.

God bless
Thank you. I acually forgot all about the passage in John where he tells Peter to feed his lambs and tend his sheep. 👍
 
I personally loved the fact that the Catholic Church is universal…
Yes, yes, yes. I think that sums it up with regards Paul de Apostle’s dilemna. Christ’s Church was meant for the whole world. It has to be universal. It is only the Catholic Church that bears that mark of universality.
 
On this forum I see that there are many faithful people to the Catholic Church,I left the Catholic Church for 16 years going to the Orthodox Churchs where they believe the Catholic Church is heretical.

I struggle with doubts about the Catholic Church and whether it has the fullness of Grace and the Holy Spirit or whether it’s doctrines and beliefs are heretical or false teachings.

For the last 2 years I have been attending the Catholic Church again and I’ve been learning about their beliefs but I’m in between the Orthodox and Catholic Church.

Pray for me Brothers and Sisters in my serious confusion.
Dear Paul,

Investigate your doubts and ask questions to which many learned people on this site will help you. They will also show you that we Catholics view the Sacred Scripture along with Sacred Tradition (remember it was impossible to write everything down as St. John confirms in his gospel) and the Magesterium of the Church. The Magesterium is the teaching arm of the Church that helps all of us have the same understanding. All 3 sources must be considered in determining meaning and truth.

Good luck on your journey for truth and God Bless. A prayer for you Paul.

MEMORARE,
Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help, or sought thy intercession, was left unaided. Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of virgins, my Mother. To thee do I come; before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful. O mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petitions, but in thy mercy hear and answer me. Amen
 
Thank you all very much for your prayers,concern and kindness.

I feel comfortable going to the Catholic Church although my Russian Orthodox Confessor told me many times not to partake of the Sacraments at Rome because he says i am a baptised Orthodox Christian,

So many times i go to Mass and dont take Holy Communion,and now i think whats the point in going if im not going to Commune.

And with the Orthodox Churches i dont feel interested to go there anymore.Its all too greek to me…
 
Thank you all very much for your prayers,concern and kindness.

I feel comfortable going to the Catholic Church although my Russian Orthodox Confessor told me many times not to partake of the Sacraments at Rome because he says i am a baptised Orthodox Christian,

So many times i go to Mass and dont take Holy Communion,and now i think whats the point in going if im not going to Commune.

And with the Orthodox Churches i dont feel interested to go there anymore.Its all too greek to me…
Why don’t you consider taking RCIA. All you can lose is a bit of your time. Then when the time comes for you to be joined into the Church, if you are not confortable you do not have to commit yourself to anything. You have nothing to lose, everything to gain.

Then if you feel that your RO is the true home for you, you can return there, or if you feel the RCC is the home for you, you again can only gain. Then you can become part of the RCC and we can say Welcome to the Family:D

But either way you can gain alot of the teaching’s of the Church and are not held to anything.
 
Thank you all very much for your prayers,concern and kindness.

I feel comfortable going to the Catholic Church although my Russian Orthodox Confessor told me many times not to partake of the Sacraments at Rome because he says i am a baptised Orthodox Christian,

So many times i go to Mass and dont take Holy Communion,and now i think whats the point in going if im not going to Commune.

And with the Orthodox Churches i dont feel interested to go there anymore.Its all too greek to me…
Paul theApostle, you mentioned earlier that you have been baptized and confirmed in both the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. This suggests to me that you have been a Catholic who was baptized and confirmed initially in the Catholic Church. Then, when you converted to Orthodoxy, you were baptized again, because the Russian Orthodox Church at present time does not accept the validity of Catholic baptism. However, from a Catholic standpoint, you are a former Catholic who could relatively easily reconcile and return to the Catholic Church, in case that you would be ready to profess the Catholic faith. What you would have to do in order to achieve this, is go to the sacrament of reconciliation (confession) to a Catholic priest, and recite the Creed with the understanding that you do believe as the Catholic Church believes.

From a Catholic point of view, your re-baptism in the Russian Orthodox Church was totally unnecessary, and should you choose to return to the Catholic Church, there would be no need for you to be baptized yet again a third time, because baptism is a one-time sacrament. Once a person is validly baptized (and you were validly baptized already, if it was done in the Catholic Church previously), there’s no need to ever again baptize that person. The Catholic Church won’t even re-baptize people who were initially baptized and raised in the Russian Orthodox Church, should they choose to convert to Catholicism. This is because the Catholic Church believes that the baptism performed in the ROC is already valid, since it was done with the correct substance (with water), and using the correct trinitarian formula (formula: in the name of the Father, and the Son, and of the Holy Spirit). According to Catholic understanding, there’s no such thing as “Catholic baptism”, “Orthodox baptism”, “Protestant baptism” etc. There’s only “valid baptism” and “invalid baptism”. A baptism is valid if it was performed with the correct substance, the correct formula, and with the correct intent, and it doesn’t really matter whether the person who validly baptized you was Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, or even a non-baptized non-Christian person. Even a Muslim, Jew, Hindu, etc can validly baptize someone, and once a person received a valid baptism there will be no need to ever baptize him again, according to Catholic understanding.

If you are thinking about returning into full communion with the Catholic Church, you should see a Catholic priest, discuss it with him, and take it from there. The priest may let you enroll into RCIA class, where you could educate yourself and ultimately make up your mind whether to stick with the Russian Orthodox Church or come back into communion with the Catholic Church. Probably the most weighty issue is, do you believe that the Pope is truly the successor of Peter the head of the Apostles, and head of the universal Church through the authority entrusted to him by Jesus Christ, or on the contrary, do you agree with the Russian Orthodox position that the supreme head of your Church is the Moscow Patriarch (or perhaps the Metropolitan of ROCOR, or OCA) and that the Pope has no authority whatsoever above the Orthodox Christians. According to the Orthodox understanding, the Pope is a usurper of power and/or a heretic, and he has no legitimate authority over the Church universal, either because he never received such authority from Christ, and/or because he lost his authority when he has fallen into heresy.
 
Back to the question Was Peter the Rock?

John 1:42 according to Jesus that would be yes. You shall be called Cephas (that is Peter the Rock)

The Lord spoke in Aramaic. In scripture whenever our Lord changed a name of a man it was to raise him to a higher dignity and role in the community in which he belonged.

Our divine Savior constantly linked himself verballly with his heavenly Father but the only other human being he ever united with Himself and spoke of Himself and that one as we was Peter.

From that day on Peter and his successors have always used we to indicated the unity between the invisible head of the Church and it visible head.

Yes Peter made his mistakes, but he proves to be a rock of fidelity later in his life, the constant theme of his letter was the Cross of Christ.

It gives you a share in Christ’s suffering, and that is cause for joy, and when his glory is revealed your joy will be triumphant. 1 Peter 4:13
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top