Okay, Peter is the rock... so?

[JB_Dugan]

The “ROCK” is purely symbolic. Whether it means “foundation”, “strength”, of “steadfastness” or whatever. The important part of that scripture is:

“…build My church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

“Keys” are also symbolic. Even in those days an important honored guest would be presented with a “key to the city” so to speak. That allowed them to “Open Doors”. (The title, Cardinal, is derived from the Latin “Cardo” meaning “hinge” or “Hinge-man”…one who opens doors.)

If you accept the bible to be the inspired word of God and the words of Jesus Christ as spoken in the New Testament to be accurate…then you realize the enormous and awesome power and responsibility placed upon Peter and his successors…

“…whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

That established the leadership of the Church.

No one questioned that leadership in the early days. All the apostles and disciples deferred to Peter…and then to his successor, Linus . All bishops, and secular rulers deferred to the Bishop of Rome. Today the Papacy is the longest running leadership organization in the history of the world.

But popes are only human…yep, that’s true.

There have 266 popes. There were a few shady characters, a couple of madmen, a sexually prolific pope or two, several who didn’t want to be pope, one who was complacent in the murder of an reigning pope…who he replaced and two guys who claimed to be pope at the same time.

But, thanks to the grace of God and the guarantee that"…** the gates of Hades will not overcome it.** (My Church)"…no pope in the history of the Church has ever done anything to harm the Church or violate her teachings.

Originally Posted by Caladrius
Maybe Protestants have no reason to believe the Bible because they don’t believe in The Church, but Catholics have no reason to believe the Church apart from the claims the Church makes. Asserting Church Authority just moves the burden of proof back by one step, does it not?

Protestants HAVE to believe the Bible…it is their ONLY authority.
Catholics have EVERY reason to believe the Church…Catholics ACCEPT the Church’s
authority. Those who question it might as well join the protestant schism.

 

[Caladrius]

Thank You to all. Much to think about.

The point about the Bible vs. the Church is this:

Protestants can appeal to the Bible as their final and infallible authority. Rome says: “ah, but who wrote the Bible?”

Catholics can appeal to the Pope as their final and infallible authority. Protestants say “ah, but who built the Papacy?”

Let’s put it this way: if there was no Bible, why would you believe the Church? What separates the Catholics from the Orthodox, for example? Both claim an infallible holy tradition. How do we know? How do we decide? Rome says “Peter was meant to be supreme and infallible”; the Easterners say “Peter was meant merely to hold the primacy”.

It makes no sense to point to the Bible to prove that your own church is The True Church. Why? You are claiming that your Church wrote the Bible too! That’s like an author saying “everything I teach is infallible”, and when asked for proof, pointing to his own autobiography!

 

[JimG]

If there were no bible, I would believe in the Church for the very same reason that the first generations of Christians believed in it–they received from the Church what had been handed down from the Apostles, which they had been taught by Christ. Eventually the bible emerged from that teaching which had been handed down–written by the Church for the Church.

The apostolic succession is shown very early–from Peter to Linus, from Linus to Cletus, from Cletus to Clement, who wrote a letter to the Corinthians to settle a dispute even while the apostle John was still alive (and lived closer). It was to the bishop of Rome that Christians looked for final authority.

I believe in the teachings for the same reason I believe some things about my grandmother which have never been written, but which have been handed down to me at family gatherings and will continue to be indefinitely.

 

[Caladrius]

JimG, are you very sure about that? Most - if not all - arguments for Roman Catholicism have recourse to the Scripture. Interestingly, none of the New Testament writers say they’re writing in the name of the Church, or for the Church, or directed by the Church - though they do say they are writing to the Church(es).

We do indeed know of Succession from extra-biblical sources, such as Ignatius and Clement. Those Fathers, however, appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the events which set Apostolic Succession in motion, do they not? Also, Clement himself is not named in the epistle attributed to him. The only reason to say it was written by Clement is simply because “it has been asserted for a very long time”; yet, the Second Letter of Clement was claimed to be by him for a very long time, but today it is believed to be pseudepigraphic. Which tradition is true? Which thing, handed-down, is right?

Do you believe everything said about your grandmother simply because it is passed down? Why is this a sure test? Remember that we can’t cite the Church’s own books (i.e. 2 Thessalonians 2:15) for exterior evidence! Also, why believe the Roman Church specifically, when the other churches claim exactly the same thing? Orthodox teach that Filioque is a violation of Holy Tradition, for example. Which Church is to be trusted? Both have tradition, and both hand things down. The same goes for the Oriental and Nestorian churches.

Maybe I am asking for a certainty that cannot exist… maybe I just need to read the books given by other generous posters. I don’t know.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank You to all. Much to think about.

The point about the Bible vs. the Church is this:

Protestants can appeal to the Bible as their final and infallible authority. Rome says: “ah, but who wrote the Bible?”

Catholics can appeal to the Pope as their final and infallible authority. Protestants say “ah, but who built the Papacy?”

My posts #3 & #4?

Let’s put it this way: if there was no Bible, why would you believe the Church? What separates the Catholics from the Orthodox, for example? Both claim an infallible holy tradition. How do we know? How do we decide? Rome says “Peter was meant to be supreme and infallible”; the Easterners say “Peter was meant merely to hold the primacy”.

It makes no sense to point to the Bible to prove that your own church is The True Church. Why? You are claiming that your Church wrote the Bible too! That’s like an author saying “everything I teach is infallible”, and when asked for proof, pointing to his own autobiography!

Assume that there is no Bible. Isn’t that the position the earliest believers were in?

Someone comes to you and says, “Caladrius, I’ve just heard the most amazing story about a man God raised from the dead. I believe He is the Messiah.” And he proceeds to tell you the good news about Jesus Christ.

When he finishes, you have a decision to make, don’t you? You can reject what he said, you can accept it, or you can decide to learn more by meeting with him again.

If you decide to believe (whether immediately or later), it is because of grace.

 

[Randy_Carson]

JimG, are you very sure about that? Most - if not all - arguments for Roman Catholicism have recourse to the Scripture. Interestingly, none of the New Testament writers say they’re writing in the name of the Church, or for the Church, or directed by the Church - though they do say they are writing to the Church(es).

Of course. We DO have the Bible, and so we make full use of it in explaining our history and our theology. However, I’m not sure that any of the NT authors was conscious of writing on behalf of the entire Church at the time…just “to” the Churches as you said.

We do indeed know of Succession from extra-biblical sources, such as Ignatius and Clement. Those Fathers, however, appeal to the Scriptures for proof of the events which set Apostolic Succession in motion, do they not?

Not entirely. Clement, fourth Bishop of Rome, knew Peter and Paul personally. Ignatius, third Bishop of Antioch, was ordained by Peter. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, was a disciple of the Apostle John. Polycarp had a student named Irenaeus who provided many details about the history of the successors of Peter in Rome.

Also, Clement himself is not named in the epistle attributed to him. The only reason to say it was written by Clement is simply because “it has been asserted for a very long time”; yet, the Second Letter of Clement was claimed to be by him for a very long time, but today it is believed to be pseudepigraphic. Which tradition is true? Which thing, handed-down, is right?

Second Clement is not from Clement. Although neither of his epistles were canonized, his first letter was read in Churches for a very long time.

Do you believe everything said about your grandmother simply because it is passed down? Why is this a sure test? Remember that we can’t cite the Church’s own books (i.e. 2 Thessalonians 2:15) for exterior evidence! Also, why believe the Roman Church specifically, when the other churches claim exactly the same thing? Orthodox teach that Filioque is a violation of Holy Tradition, for example. Which Church is to be trusted? Both have tradition, and both hand things down. The same goes for the Oriental and Nestorian churches.

I can’t speak for JimG’s grandmother’s stories, but the Holy Spirit has every reason to ensure that the Catholic Church is led into all truth concerning the books He inspired.

 

[Nita]

Friends,

I am a catholic with a problem.

The Peshitta Bible (300s) clearly establishes that Peter is the “Kepha”, the Rock, on which the Church is built. One problem, however, is answering the questions: “Okay, so Peter was the foundation; therefore, what? Why should all his successors also be the foundation? Doesn’t a building just have one foundation for all time?” In other words, why does Peter’s “rockiness” extend after his death? What reason is there to believe that? I mean, if apostolic succession is that literal, shouldn’t St. Matthias have been a traitor to the Church just like his predecessor, Judas Iscariot?

These questions have tortured me to the point of making me stay away from Rome, just in case the Papacy isn’t correct or true. I would appreciate any thoughts.

Jesus said His Church would be built on “this Rock/Peter” and Peter would hold the keys of His kingdom. Now** those are 2 criteria that **identify Our Lord’s Church.

If Our Lord’s words applied only to Peter, then that would mean Jesus’ Church existed only as long as Peter lived - 35 or so years; it just plain wouldn’t exist here on earth anymore; it would have collapsed when the “Rock” on which it was built was no longer there.
Do you think Jesus’ intent was to establish a visible, identifiable Church to be there only 35 years for those who believed in Him?

But, if Our Lord desired His Church on earth to last till the “end of the age”, that means there should be successors to Peter’s role/office who continue to hold the powers given to him when Our Lord founded His Church. There should be a Church that has continually claimed, from the time of Peter’s death until today, that it’s head is this successor to Peter and holds the “power of the keys”. Only the Catholic Church even makes such a claim. Or do you think His intent was to establish a visible, identifiable Church that would be here for all His followers throughout the years, to guide and shepherd them until His final coming at the end of the world?

 

[JimG]

I can’t speak for JimG’s grandmother’s stories, but the Holy Spirit has every reason to ensure that the Catholic Church is led into all truth concerning the books He inspired.

I learned a lot about oral tradition from family gatherings. We would hear the same stories, in the same words, repeated every year, not as a matter of planning, just in the normal course of conversation. Often, we heard the stories so often, we could repeat them word for word, which sometimes irked my mother, when one of her sons would pick up the story she was recounting, and start in without missing a beat. “Okay, you tell it, then!” she would say. None of that family history was written down, and may never be, unless I choose to write it. That does not make it any less reliable.

I’m amazed that people doubt the Catholic Church at all. Jesus taught the Apostles, the Apostles taught their successors, and what emerged is the Catholic Church. That’s not just a historical anomaly, that’s the working of the Holy Spirit guiding the Church from the very beginning.

One might wish to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit messed up from the beginning and everything went wrong right away, but that requires a lot more faith than just looking at what happened. What happened was the Church. What happened was Peter, Linus, Cletus, Clement and a whole succession of bishops of Rome guiding the Church down to the present day.

 

[St_Francis]

JimG, are you very sure about that? Most - if not all - arguments for Roman Catholicism have recourse to the Scripture. Interestingly, none of the New Testament writers say they’re writing in the name of the Church, or for the Church, or directed by the Church - though they do say they are writing to the Church(es).

I think that many current US apologetics have recourse to Scripture because they are directed towards Protestant ideas, and those tend to be “based on the Bible.”

There is always going to be a bit of circularity about the arguments because they deal with revealed truth rather than natural truth, and revealed truth has limited sources.

 

[Abu]

Caladrius #5
What about the Protestant interpretation that Peter had the keys personally, merely so that he would be the first to open the gates of salvation: first to the Jews (Pentecost), then to the Gentiles (Cornelius)?

Their error is in disregarding the mandate of Jesus, the Son of God, in installing Peter as His Supreme Vicar:
All four promises to Peter alone:
“You are Peter and on this rock I will build My Church.” (Mt 16:18)
“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
“I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later to the Twelve]

**Sole authority: **
“Strengthen your brethren.” (Lk 22:32)
“Feed My sheep.”(Jn 21:17).

So the other Apostles were NOT given this supreme authority given to Christ’s Supreme Vicar.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

On the Council of Jerusalem, the Council took place on the eve of the dispersion of the apostles on their mission to “all the world.” St. James seems to have been designated as the future Bishop of Jerusalem, but there is no indication that Jerusalem itself had been designated as the “chief See”. At the Council, St. Peter manifested his superior authority by speaking first, giving his decision and declaring that, by means of a vision, the course to be adopted had been indicated to him by God. His verdict did not need the approval of the assembly, and it left no room for discussion. Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). “All held their peace” once Peter had spoken (Acts, 15:11).

The Anglican scholar, Dr. Trevor G. Jalland, in his book The Church and the Papacy, says of the subsequent speech of St. James: “It is the summing up of a chairman, not the verdict of an arbiter. If anything, the narrative suggests that it was the evidence of Peter which turned the scales of decision.” The same Dr. Jalland says of St. Paul’s visit to Jerusalem (Galatians, 1:18) that Paul “admits that he did encounter James . . . but makes it clear that this meeting was purely accidental. Why was it so important to introduce himself to St. Peter? Can we exclude the possibility that St. Paul had some problem of a pastoral or administrative nature, regarding which he had reason to think that St. Peter’s opinion would not only be valuable, but decisive?” At most it can be said, as regards the Council itself, that St. James acted as local host, not as supreme ruler of the whole Church.

Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

This is the reality it is time to accept.

 

[Abu]

Caladrius #8
the Orthodox claim all the authority of the Papacy, simply spread out across many bishops. How am I supposed to discern which is “the True Church”? They both say they wrote the Bible, and then they both claim to prove this from within the Bible. It seems that every proof for every Church’s authority comes ultimately from the Church itself, without any outside corroborative evidence.

The reality of denial of some truths in the Orthodox Churches is over the teaching against contraception, denial of the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, and the permission of divorce and remarriage.

You have now seen that Christ gave no one else the authority that He gave to St Peter alone. Having built His Church on St Peter He promised the Holy Spirit’s guidance to “all truth”:
“I will not leave you orphans; I will come to you." (John 14:15-18) “The Advocate, the Holy Spirit that the Father will send in My name, He will teach you everything and remind you of all that I told you.” (John 14:26) “But when He comes, the Spirit of truth, He will guide you to all truth. He will not speak on His own, but He will speak what He hears, and will declare to you the things that are coming. He will glorify Me, because He will take from what is mine and declare it to you. Everything that the Father has is mine; for this reason I told you that He will take from what is mine and declare it to you.” (John 16:13-15):

Then His Catholic Church alone defined the books that actually are declared the inspired Word of God through Pope Damasus at a Council of Rome in 382, confirmed at the Councils of Hippo, 393, Carthage III 397, Carthage IV in 419 and canonised at the Council of Trent (1545-1563) – 46 books in the Old Testament, 27 books in the New Testament.

Jesus warned dissenters: “if he refuses to hear even the Church let him be like the heathen and a publican.” (Mt 18:17).

St. Paul says also, “through the Church the manifold wisdom of God might now be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places (Eph 3:10).” The Church teaches even the angels! This is with the authority of Christ!

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

It is precisely because Adolph von Harnack is such a radical that his admittance – using facts and reason as an “outsider” – is so valuable. With the evidence from the Sacred Scriptures that Peter was chosen by Christ, on whom He built His Church, von Harnack’s reference to “the special guardian of the common unity” is very apt – Peter holds the primacy, and his successors likewise as Christ had instituted His Church until the end of time, so the primacy on earth must exist until the end of time in Peter’s legitimate successors – in the bishops of Rome who succeeded Peter – claimed and exercised.

 

[Abu]

Caladrius #14
How do we know the Pope and his leadership are established by divine authority? The Bible is good evidence.
How do we know the Bible is true? The Church wrote it.
How do we know the Church is true? The Papacy guides it.
How do we know the Papacy is able to infallibly guide the Church? Well, Matthew 16:18…
It all comes down to “God says so”, or “we say so”. Isn’t that circular and self-referential?

The myopia of “circularity” is a figment of the imagination.

It takes real squares to feel that it is circular to acknowledge with reason that the historical accounts in the Gospels factually through eyewitnesses show the establishment of Christ’s Church on Peter the Rock, His miracles, His claim to be God and His Resurrection, and to accept that His Church with His authority can then teach infallibly and tell us what writings are the inspired Word of God!

For all readers, the falsehood of circularity is shown in the reality that:

1. The documents of Scripture are HISTORICAL – it is absurd to claim that Scripture is inspired without the authority of God to know that it is inspired.
2. However, HISTORICALLY, the documents of Scripture relate that the man Jesus claimed to be sent by God, claimed to be God, proved His claim by His miracles and His Resurrection, established His Church on St Peter to continue His teaching until the end of time.
3. HIS CHURCH, HISTORICALLY ESTABLISHED, then teaches what writings form God’s Word and that all of those writings, and no others, are inspired by the Holy Spirit. No one else can decide what books are inspired or has any authority to do so.

When the Twelve are sent on mission, they are told by Christ “And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words…shake off the dust from your feet. Assuredly I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the Day of Judgment than for that city.” (Mt 10: 14-15).

Those who don’t know their history need to. The authorisation, coming from Christ’s Vicar and His Church, didn’t fall out of thin air, but from Christ’s mandate to teach all that He had commanded.

 

[crochet_lady]

How do we know the Bible is true? Because of 2 Timothy 3:16 “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

John 14:6 Jesus Christ is saying “I am the way, the Truth, and the life, no man cometh to the Father, but by Me.”

 

[JimG]

When Paul wrote these words, was he referring to himself? Did he assert that he was writing scripture? Just which scripture did he have in mind, considering that the new testament writings were not completed at that time, nor assembled and canonized as definitively scripture.

His writings were eventually recognized as scripture by the Church, since they were read during the liturgy and recognized by the Church as such.

 

[Ed_Silvia]

Friends,
“Okay, so Peter was the foundation; therefore, what? Why should all his successors also be the foundation? Doesn’t a building just have one foundation for all time?” In other words, why does Peter’s “rockiness” extend after his death? What reason is there to believe that?.

Mathew 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

Just like St. Peter Our Father in heaven has revealed it unto us.

 

[hu324b]

There is another reference to the ‘rock’ found in Psalm 62: 1 and following "Truly my soul silently waits for God; From Him comes my salvation. vs 2 "He only is the rock and my salvation; He is mys defense; I shall not be greatly moved, and vs 5 and all those following verses. "He is my defense; I shall not be moved. In God is my salvation and my glory; The rock of my strength, and my refuge is in God.
Vs 8 “Trust in Him at all times, you people; Pour out your heart before Him, God is a refuge for us.”

Also 2 Samuel 22:2 "Then David spoke to the Lord the words of this song, on the day when the Lord had delivered him from the hand of all his enemies, and from the hand of Saul. vs 2 “And he said, The Lord is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer; The God of my strength, in whom I will trust; My shield and the horn of my salvation.”

Good points 'Randy Carson"

So are you saying Jesus words about Peter should be ignored because a psalm and prayer said the lord is my rock?

 

[Randy_Carson]

So are you saying Jesus words about Peter should be ignored because a psalm and prayer said the lord is my rock?

I don’t think that is what Crochet Lady was saying, but I’ll offer this:

Matthew 16:18 – Peter the Rock
Understanding the Use of Metaphor in the New Testament

Matthew 16:18-20 (NIV)
18And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

[a] Peter means rock.

Many non-Catholics object to the idea that Peter was the rock upon which Jesus promised to build the Church, and they offer various alternative interpretations of the rock as being Jesus himself, Peter’s confession of faith, and the curious hybrid Peter and his confession. To support their denial of Jesus’ establishment of Peter as the head of the Church, non-Catholics frequently cite other scripture passages in which Jesus is called the “chief cornerstone” and the apostles collectively being described as foundation stones. These arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of the use of metaphors within the pages of scripture. Author Stephen Ray, himself a former Evangelical and convert to Catholicism, addressed this problem in his book, Upon This Rock:

“In this metaphorical description, Jesus himself could not be the foundation, because in this illustration he presents himself as the builder. The following is very important. In Scripture Jesus is variously depicted as the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11), the builder (Mt. 16:18), the cornerstone (Acts 4:11), and the temple itself (Rev. 21:22). We also see the apostles and/or believers as the foundation (Eph. 2:20, Rev. 21:14), the builders (1 Cor. 3:10), the stones, lithos, not petra (1 Pet. 2:5), the building (1 Cor. 3:9), and the temple (Eph. 2:21). Many illustrations are used to explain various aspects of the Church. One cannot simply substitute one descriptive figure of speech for another in any one illustration thereby mixing metaphors. It does great violence to the textual illustration itself and is a good example of roughshod “proof-texting”, wrongly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim. 2:15). The Bible does not set up a dichotomy—either Jesus or Peter; rather, it presents us with both Jesus and Peter as foundation stones. Jesus is establishing the man who will be the focal point of unity within the Church, the foundation. He who builds upon sand has a structure that crumbles (Mt. 7:24-27). Jesus builds his Church upon the rock of his choice, and, by his protection, the Church has stood the test of time. The powers of hell have failed to destroy or corrupt her” (Stephen Ray, Upon this Rock, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999], 36.)

In this same book, Ray also cites Protestant George Salmon, author of The Infallibility of the Church which he wrote to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church. On the matter of metaphorical usage, Salmon wrote at length:

“It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation [of the Church]: “other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances, may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):—“Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief cornerstone.” And in like manner we read (Rev. 21:14):—“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb.” How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ, and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly, because the metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation, from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, “for one is our Father which is in heaven.” And yet, in another sense, Paul did not scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.” (George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church [London: John Murray, 1914], 338-339).

 

[TimothyH]

The “ROCK” is purely symbolic. Whether it means “foundation”, “strength”, of “steadfastness” or whatever. The important part of that scripture is:

“Keys” are also symbolic.

The Rock is not symbolic. It is not a metaphor. Nor are the keys. There was a literal rock and literal keys.

The Mishna records that after the Ark was taken away they put a rock in its place. It was called Shetiyah which means Foundation. The Shetiyah was in the Holy of Holies and it was considered the center of the universe.

The keys to the temple itself were kept by the priests in a rock. They used to lock the Temple up nightly. The priest would retrieve the keys from the rock, lock up the temple and return the keys to the rock.They would place a marble slab over the rock and the priest would sleep on it. The Babylonian Talmud and Josephus record many events around the keys to the Temple.

This is all documented by Dr. Brant Pitre, with footnotes, in his study Jesus and the Jewish roots of the Papacy. Reference brantpitre.com/documents/printable_outlines/papacy_outline.pdf

Jesus’ words about rock and keys were based on the literal understanding by the Jews of how the temple was constructed and how the priests handled the keys.

-Tim-