Peter as the Rock

[PRmerger]

Not being a theologian or a student of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, I can’t address the meanings of ‘petra’ or ‘petros’. I have a different approach. In trying to understand the Catholic position of Peter being the Rock, I don’t think you are saying that he was the Chief Cornerstone as this refers to Jesus alone. (Isa 28:16, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20) The Chief Cornerstone established the true line by which the building could be built straight and true. Eph 2:20 tells of God’s household being built on the foundation of the “apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.” In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord." The foundation is the message the apostles and prophets taught; it was not about themselves in any way. Peter describes us all as “living stones” being built into a spiritual house…" with Jesus Christ as our living Stone. (1 Peter 2:4-8)

I also don’t think you are referring to the Rock mentioned in the OT. For example, “Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isa 44:86) and “Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord is the Rock eternal.” (Isa 26:4) David spoke of the “rock that is higher than I.” (Ps 61:26) And finally, “I am the LORD; that is My Name! I will not give my glory to another.”…(Isa 42:8)

Again, I don’t think you are saying that Peter was the “living Stone.” This stone can only refer to Jesus. “The stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,” and this happens “because they disobey the message.” Nor could you believe that Peter is the one described in 1 Cor. 10:4 - The Israelites “drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them; and that rock was Christ.”

All of these: Chief Cornerstone, Rock, and living Stone can describe only One and that is Jesus Christ.

It sounds as if you’re saying that since Jesus is proclaimed in Scripture to be the Rock then it means that no one else can be metaphorically assigned to be a rock as well?

Then as Scripture states that Jesus is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11) are you positing that no one else can be a foundation?

If so, then how do you reconcile this *with Scripture specifically stating *that the apostles and prophets are also a foundation (Eph 2:20)?

Scripture produces a multitude of mixing of metaphors. As Catholic Apologist Steve Ray explains:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is the builder and Jesus is the foundation; in Matthew, Jesus is the builder and Peter is the rock foundation. Another New Testament metaphor pictures the Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).

 

[ZDHayden]

I have been watching this thread for a while, as I have had some . . . Doubts I’ve been dealing with. I must say the behavior from some of the ROMAN CATHOLIC participants has been horrendous! The logic on the side representing Rome needs in many places a remedial course. Spouting off verses that mention Peter as having some semblance of primacy does not help your case, as the Orthodox have no problems with these verses, the concept of Peter being the first among the Apostles, or the fact that, when Christianity was united, Rome did have a great place of honor. In order to create a convincing argument for Papal supremacy and infallibility, one must address both Protestant and Orthodox claims. As for the former, that can be done if the Protestant in question is outmaneuvered and has not been exposed to the Orthodox Church. I’ve looked and been unable to find any satisfactory rebuttal to Orthodox claims.

I cannot remember who said it, but someone on these forums (thank you, whoever it was) once made a statement I am beginning to see more and more merits in (my paraphrase): “If being being steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, then to further know history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.” I use the term Roman Catholic, as what is commonly called the “Catholic Church” in the West is headed in Rome; the official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”

Don’t bother responding to this post. I didn’t join in to converse, but to relay my dissatisfaction.

I’ve noticed a tendency on some threads on this forum - if someone disagrees with the Roman interpretation and ideals, he is frequently called “anti-Catholic” in the sense that he somehow hates the Roman Church - as happened on this very thread.

 

[adrift]

I have been watching this thread for a while, as I have had some . . . Doubts I’ve been dealing with…

I am sorry you are having such a struggle. I hope you realize that these doubts are coloring your perspective.

I must say the behavior from some of the ROMAN CATHOLIC participants has been horrendous!

Really? In what way are they? What are you referring to. I have been following this thread also and I have not seen anything horrendous. Would you elaborate.

The logic on the side representing Rome needs in many places a remedial course

Please explain. I don’t understand your logic. That is a word that is thrown around without meaning or understanding of basic concepts so please give a better explanation of what you are referring to.

.spouting off verses that mention Peter as having some semblance of primacy does not help your case, as the Orthodox have no problems with these verses, the concept of Peter being the first among the Apostles, or the fact that, when Christianity was united, Rome did have a great place of honor. In order to create a convincing argument for Papal supremacy and infallibility, one must address both Protestant and Orthodox claims

These have been address many time. There is no agreement. It seems silly to say that it doesn’t help your case because it doesn’t help theirs either.

. As for the former, that can be done if the Protestant in question is outmaneuvered and has not been exposed to the Orthodox Church. I’ve looked and been unable to find any satisfactory rebuttal to Orthodox claims.

I have looked too and have not found their claims viable but perhaps it what I mentioned before about your doubts?

I cannot remember who said it, but someone on these forums (thank you, whoever it was) once made a statement I am beginning to see more and more merits in (my paraphrase): “If being being steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, then to further know history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.” I use the term Roman Catholic, as what is commonly called the “Catholic Church” in the West is headed in Rome; the official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”

Cute but not substantiated by fact.

Don’t bother responding to this post. I didn’t join in to converse, but to relay my dissatisfaction.

Wow! You can show your dissatisfation but nobody better respond with theirs.

I’ve noticed a tendency on some threads on this forum - if someone disagrees with the Roman interpretation and ideals, he is frequently called “anti-Catholic” in the sense that he somehow hates the Roman Church - as happened on this very thread.

Where in this thread? Was it really because there was a disagreement of Catholic interpretation? Are you referring to the person who was banned? I have noticed a tendancy myself. Catholics on the forum are accused of all sorts of unchristian things by those who tend to be unchristian themselves. Yet when asked to show these accusations they fail to provide proof. It proves the old adage “the best defense is an offence”

 

[benedictus2]

Not being a theologian or a student of Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, I can’t address the meanings of ‘petra’ or ‘petros’. I have a different approach. In trying to understand the Catholic position of Peter being the Rock, I don’t think you are saying that he was the Chief Cornerstone as this refers to Jesus alone. (Isa 28:16, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20) The Chief Cornerstone established the true line by which the building could be built straight and true. Eph 2:20 tells of God’s household being built on the foundation of the “apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone.” In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord." The foundation is the message the apostles and prophets taught; it was not about themselves in any way. Peter describes us all as “living stones” being built into a spiritual house…" with Jesus Christ as our living Stone. (1 Peter 2:4-8)

I also don’t think you are referring to the Rock mentioned in the OT. For example, “Is there any God besides Me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.” (Isa 44:86) and “Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord is the Rock eternal.” (Isa 26:4) David spoke of the “rock that is higher than I.” (Ps 61:26) And finally, “I am the LORD; that is My Name! I will not give my glory to another.”…(Isa 42:8)

Again, I don’t think you are saying that Peter was the “living Stone.” This stone can only refer to Jesus. “The stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall,” and this happens “because they disobey the message.” Nor could you believe that Peter is the one described in 1 Cor. 10:4 - The Israelites “drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them; and that rock was Christ.”

All of these: Chief Cornerstone, Rock, and living Stone can describe only One and that is Jesus Christ.

So now I wonder: What was there about Peter that could make him a rock upon which Jesus would build His church? Certainly Peter was the leader of the disciples, bold and passionate in his love for his Messiah. He was most often the one first stepping out in faith. After being filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he was first to preach the gospel and thus the church began - not because of anything about Peter himself, but rather the message of Jesus crucified and risen as our Savior. Without this message there is no reason for a church. Based on all of this, it does follow that the rock of Matt 16:18 is Peter’s acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ.

Finally, I consider 1 Cor 1-3 where we are admonished against elevating one of Jesus’ servants over another. If we do that, we are “boasting about men!” and not about our Lord who is the only One worthy of praise.

So, would you agree that Peter was not the Rock himself but his message of our Savior is that upon which the church is built? “For no one can lay any foundation other than…Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11)

You’ve gone round and round and round and round and had not addressed the text at all.

Go back and re-reat Matthew 16. Then address the OP.

As to what was there that about Peter that makes him rock - absolutely nothing save the Will of God. That 's all it is. A simple Free Choice and Free Willing of God. If you have an issue with Peter’s “rockness” take up with Who made him rock. But be sure to be respectful as it will be God you will be addressing your complaints to.

 

[benedictus2]

I have been watching this thread for a while, as I have had some . . . Doubts I’ve been dealing with. I must say the behavior from some of the ROMAN CATHOLIC participants has been horrendous! The logic on the side representing Rome needs in many places a remedial course. Spouting off verses that mention Peter as having some semblance of primacy does not help your case, as the Orthodox have no problems with these verses, the concept of Peter being the first among the Apostles, or the fact that, when Christianity was united, Rome did have a great place of honor. In order to create a convincing argument for Papal supremacy and infallibility, one must address both Protestant and Orthodox claims. As for the former, that can be done if the Protestant in question is outmaneuvered and has not been exposed to the Orthodox Church. I’ve looked and been unable to find any satisfactory rebuttal to Orthodox claims.

I cannot remember who said it, but someone on these forums (thank you, whoever it was) once made a statement I am beginning to see more and more merits in (my paraphrase): “If being being steeped in history is to cease to be Protestant, then to further know history is to cease to be Roman Catholic.” I use the term Roman Catholic, as what is commonly called the “Catholic Church” in the West is headed in Rome; the official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church is the “Orthodox Catholic Church.”

Don’t bother responding to this post. I didn’t join in to converse, but to relay my dissatisfaction.

I’ve noticed a tendency on some threads on this forum - if someone disagrees with the Roman interpretation and ideals, he is frequently called “anti-Catholic” in the sense that he somehow hates the Roman Church - as happened on this very thread.

Yes, vent your spleen and turn tail and run. How admirable.
That screams : afraid of rebuttal

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

It sounds as if you’re saying that since Jesus is proclaimed in Scripture to be the Rock then it means that no one else can be metaphorically assigned to be a rock as well?

Then as Scripture states that Jesus is the foundation (1 Cor 3:11) are you positing that no one else can be a foundation?

If so, then how do you reconcile this *with Scripture specifically stating *that the apostles and prophets are also a foundation (Eph 2:20)?

Scripture produces a multitude of mixing of metaphors. As Catholic Apologist Steve Ray explains:
In 1 Corinthians, Paul is the builder and Jesus is the foundation; in Matthew, Jesus is the builder and Peter is the rock foundation. Another New Testament metaphor pictures the Church “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:20).

 

[guanophore]

At that time the Eastern Orthodox, Jews and Muslims to name a few were not in subjection to the pope.

The USA is not trying to give citizenship to those already here. Why is the Catholic Church trying to unite with those who are already united with her?

Subjection, Ron, is individual, not cultural. As I am sure you are aware, the vast majority of American Catholics are disobedient to the Church. That is why, to say that “Roman Catholics are subjected to the Pope” in the sense you are using the word is not applicable.

I am going to try this from another perspective, not because I think it will do any good for you, but for the sake of the lurkers reading. I offer this fact:

Eph 5:23-25
24 As the church is subject to Christ, so let wives also be subject in everything to their husbands. 25 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…

Christ is Head of the Church. Members of His One Body are subject to Him. This is an objective fact. One a subjective level, we know that not all the members of the Body are, in fact, subjected to Him, preferring to pick and choose how they will obey. This subjective disobedience does not alter the objective fact that He is the Head.

In the same way, Jesus has appointed Peter to feed and care for His Flock here on earth. This duty was passed to Peter’s successor to this present day. To the successor of Peter belongs the responsibility to feed and care for every member of His Body. There are none exempted. Therefore, all those who are members of His Body, whether they be Jews, Muslims, or Protestants, and whether they know it or not, are subject to the care and feeding of the successor of Peter. Now many reject this principle of authority appointed by Christ over them. This does not change the objective fact that it exists. It just makes them rebellious subjects of the Roman Pontiff. That includes you, Ron.

 

[guanophore]

What does that mean? Is the pope trying to unite with the Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans so he can govern them?

No, Ron. He is already their governor. To him has been given the care and feeding of ONE FLOCK. They are members of the Church, the ONE BODY. They have been separated from perfect unity, and it is the duty of the successor of Peter to preserve the unity of the Truth.

Unity occurs naturally when individuals embract Truth. Those who have departed from unity have strayed from Truth.

 

[guanophore]

In trying to understand the Catholic position of Peter being the Rock, I don't think you are saying that he was the Chief Cornerstone as this refers to Jesus alone. (Isa 28:16, Matt. 21:42, Acts 4:11, Eph 2:20)  The Chief Cornerstone established the true line by which the building could be built straight and true.  Eph 2:20 tells of God's household being built on the foundation of the "apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus as the Chief Cornerstone."  In Him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord."

Yes, this is Catholic. Peter was grafted into Christ, so that he could become that straight and true line, anchored in Christ. Similarly, so were all the Aposles and prophets.

The foundation is the message the apostles and prophets taught; it was not about themselves in any way.

This one of the most damaging Reformation heresies that continues to fracture the Church todoay. On the contrary, the faith of Peter cannot be separated from the Rock into which he was grafted when he professed this faith. The message cannot be separated from the Cornerstone. Separating them, and saying the message is not about the person, introduces false dichotomies. Jesus renamed Simon bar Jonah “Cephas” for a reason! He is completely idenfied with his Rocky profession of faith, and the Rock of Ages into whom he was grafted.

Peter describes us all as "living stones" being built into a spiritual house..." with Jesus Christ as our living Stone.  (1 Peter 2:4-8)

Yes, but when a stone separates or falls away from the One Faith, then it is no longer plumlined with the cornerstone.

 I also don't think you are referring to the Rock mentioned in the OT.  For example, "Is there any God besides Me?  No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." (Isa 44:86) and "Trust in the Lord forever, for the Lord, the Lord is the Rock eternal." (Isa 26:4)  David spoke of the "rock that is higher than I." (Ps 61:26)  And finally, "I am the LORD; that is My Name!  I will not give my glory to another."...(Isa 42:8)

There is no separation between Christ, and His One Body, the Church. Many of our separated brethren today seem to embrace a headless body, or a bodiless head.

 Again, I don't think you are saying that Peter was the "living Stone."

Now you are just contradicting yourself. Above you accepted that we are all built into the Church as “living stones”. So, which is it? You are built in as a living stone, but Peter is not?

This stone can only refer to Jesus.  "The stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall," and this happens "because they disobey the message."   Nor could you believe that Peter is the one described in 1 Cor. 10:4 - The Israelites "drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them; and that rock was Christ."

The Church has become the source of that living water through which Christ waters and feeds HIs One Flock.

All of these:  Chief Cornerstone, Rock, and living Stone can describe only One and that is Jesus Christ.

To the extent that we are in unity with our Cornerstone, we can also benefit as living stones.

 So now I wonder:  What was there about Peter that could make him a rock upon which Jesus would build His church?  Certainly Peter was the leader of the disciples, bold and passionate in his love for his Messiah.  He was most often the one first stepping out in faith.  After being filled with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, he was first to preach the gospel and thus the church began - not because of anything about Peter himself, but rather the message of Jesus crucified and risen as our Savior.  Without this message there is no reason for a church.  Based on all of this, it does follow that the rock of Matt 16:18 is Peter's acknowledgement of Jesus as the Christ.

It seems that you have an investment in separating and dividing. This, indeed, is the fruit of the Reformation, continuing to seed itself today.

Peter is not separated from his confession of faith, or from Christ, in whom his faith lies. What was given to him was revealed to him by the Father. He and the message are one. That is what Jesus was indicating when Jesus changed his name.

 Finally, I consider 1 Cor 1-3 where we are admonished against elevating one of Jesus' servants over another.  If we do that, we are "boasting about men!" and not about our Lord who is the only One worthy of praise.

So, would you agree that Peter was not the Rock himself but his message of our Savior is that upon which the church is built? “For no one can lay any foundation other than…Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:11)

The fact that some members of the body have different roles does not make one more “elevated” than the other. On the contrary, the successor of Peter signs all of his documents "servant of the servants of God.

Why does it bother you so much that Peter was made foundational to the Church?

 

[guanophore]

Don’t bother responding to this post. I didn’t join in to converse, but to relay my dissatisfaction.

In that case, you have come to the wrong place. CAF is here to provide Catholic Answers to those seeking them. It is not a venue for you to “relay dissatisfaction”. I am sure you can find plenty of dissident websites that will be happy to fan the flames of your dissatisfaction. I can assure you it won’t happen here.

I 've noticed a tendency on some threads on this forum - if someone disagrees with the Roman interpretation and ideals, he is frequently called “anti-Catholic” in the sense that he somehow hates the Roman Church - as happened on this very thread.

Many people who have embraced anti-Catholic positions are not hostile or hateful toward Catholicism. Some of them have never known or considered anything Catholic, and have embraced heresies because they believe them to be the Apostolic Teaching. they are in faith traditions that have been separated from the Apostolic faith for 500+ years, and have no idea that the ideas they espouse were created for an anti-Catholic purpose.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Wow guanophore you guys have this back on track. My only thought which I do not remember if we mentioned is the relationship of Matthew and the Keys with Isaiah 22:21-25. Here once again we have the relationship of OT to NT.

Peace

 

[Pure_and_Simple]

Pure_and_Simple:
Yes, the apostles and prophets are the foundation built upon the Bedrock which is Christ. I fail to see any dichotomy in that. The Church was built upon the testimony and witness of the apostles and prophets, but they would have no testimony without their belief in Jesus Christ. That is not going ‘round and round’. I cannot escape the fact that all spiritual truth rests upon Jesus and no other.

Jesus Christ is The Living Stone, we are living stones. Of course, you see the difference.
Similarly, He is the Vine and I am in Him but that does not make me the Vine; I am still a branch. And, He is the Potter, I am the clay.

My only difficulty with Peter as The Rock is that by giving him that honor and acclaim, it diminishes Jesus and all that He is. The dichotomy I see is that both Peter and Jesus cannot simultaneously be THE ROCK. (emphasis only - not shouting) I guess I am rising to the defense of Jesus (Who needs no defense from little ole me) but, nevertheless, it disturbs me to think that His honor, sovereignty, and incomparable worth are threatened by another - especially one of His own followers. You will probably say, “No, that is not what we are doing.” So I am left scratching my head trying to figure out where exactly you are coming from on this issue.

I believe that Peter would agree with John the Baptist when he said, “I must decrease that He may increase.” So, you see, when I read the posts on this thread, and saw that Peter was promoted as pre-eminent, and it was all about his authority, rule, and power, well, red flags went up for me. Maybe you can rationalize how Peter and Jesus both can be The Rock; I simply cannot. Notice I did not say ‘a rock’ but rather ‘The Rock’ which is the way, I believe, the Catholic Church regards him. Finally, Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. There is no substitute for Him, nor any need for one.

 

[KathleenGee]

The reality is, though, is that our faith is based on Christ.

Christ did not pass out Bibles or texts.

Instead He chose treasures of clay, --like us-- to form His church…a living, breathing entity.

It is hard to see this.

As a Roman Catholic, I am blessed to have knowledge of being in communion with Christ and with all believers through the Holy Father, the successors to the Apostles – the bishops.

We cannot have 2 heads. As the world changed, so did the parameters of the papacy. The office of Peter has never passed away. It has been filled by holy popes, lukewarm popes, and bad popes. And therefore, parameters had to be changed to avoid electing bad popes in the future.

If people would study the history of Christianity, one would see that every generation was facing possible extermination in one form or another, that the times we live in are filled with uncertainty and trevail.

The Church with the ‘barq of Peter’ has always been the focal point representing all of us from many parts of the world as having one faith.

The pope is not a guru. He has thousands of consultants. Very seldom does he make a decision or dogma. When he does, it is the working of the Holy Spirit. When a dogma has been proclaimed, we have found it resonating with the communion of Christ through the Holy Spirit that we have within us.

We are free, I do not have a set of orders from the Vatican dictating how I must think and act and vote every day.

It takes a long time for people to disconnect from the false image of the nature and mission of the Church they have here in the USA. That is because many American Christians have had their roots with ancient Christianity severed.

Best help is study objective history of Christianity. You won’t find understanding from the Bible as it is the guide of the Church, the Word of God. You have to study the history of the Church, see how it evolved, see how it reformed itself, and that is including Tradition – the way of understanding Scripture in the tradition of the Apostles, the original chosen followers of Christ.

 

[ron77nyc]

I believe that Peter would agree with John the Baptist when he said, “I must decrease that He may increase.” So, you see, when I read the posts on this thread, and saw that Peter was promoted as pre-eminent, and it was all about his authority, rule, and power, well, red flags went up for me. Maybe you can rationalize how Peter and Jesus both can be The Rock; I simply cannot. Notice I did not say ‘a rock’ but rather ‘The Rock’ which is the way, I believe, the Catholic Church regards him. Finally, Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. There is no substitute for Him, nor any need for one.

I’m with you on this one. The red flags go up for me too. This what Peter taught:

Peter 2:13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right. 15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men. 16 Act as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all people, love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

This is a quote from Pope Pius XI.

vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_23121922_ubi-arcano-dei-consilio_en.html
ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI
ON THE PEACE OF CHRIST IN THE KINGDOM OF CHRIST

Given at Rome, at St. Peter’s, on the twenty-third day of December, in the year 1922, the first of Our Pontificate.

1. It is scarcely necessary to say here how painful it is to Us to note that from this galaxy of friendly powers which surround Us one is missing, Italy, Our own dear native land, the country where the hand of God, who guides the course of history, has set down the Chair of His Vicar on earth, in this city of Rome which, from being the capital of the wonderful Roman Empire, was made by Him the capital of the whole world, because He made it the seat of a sovereignty which, since it extends beyond the confines of nations and states, embraces within itself all the peoples of the whole world. The very origin and divine nature of this sovereignty demands, the inviolable rights of conscience of millions of the faithful of the whole world demand that this sacred sovereignty must not be, neither must it ever appear to be, subject to any human authority or law whatsoever, even though that law be one which proclaims certain guaranties for the liberty of the Roman Pontiff.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, the apostles and prophets are the foundation built upon the Bedrock which is Christ. I fail to see any dichotomy in that. The Church was built upon the testimony and witness of the apostles and prophets, but they would have no testimony without their belief in Jesus Christ. That is not going ‘round and round’. I cannot escape the fact that all spiritual truth rests upon Jesus and no other.

Then this makes you very Catholic in your belief Pure and Simple!

My only difficulty with Peter as The Rock is that by giving him that honor and acclaim, it diminishes Jesus and all that He is.

How so? Did having a chief steward in ancient Israel diminish in any way the honor and acclaim of king?

See Isaiah 22.

The dichotomy I see is that both Peter and Jesus cannot simultaneously be THE ROCK. (emphasis only - not shouting)

This is curious, as you seem to see no dichotomy in the simultaneous metaphor of Jesus being the foundation and the apostles and prophets being the foundation, but you do with the word “rock”?

I believe that Peter would agree with John the Baptist when he said, “I must decrease that He may increase.”

Indeed. Catholics believe he would say that as well. In fact, one of the titles of the pope is “the servant of the servants of God”.

Maybe you can rationalize how Peter and Jesus both can be The Rock; I simply cannot.

Perhaps you could apply your ability to see no dichotomy in Jesus as foundational as well as the apostles and prophets also being foundational to this concept as well?

Finally, Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever. There is no substitute for Him, nor any need for one.

Again, this makes you very Catholic when you say this.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m with you on this one.

ron, would it be fair for me to state that you’re with anyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church?

That is, could you please provide any post you’ve made in which you’ve supported and upheld a teaching of the Catholic Church in a dialogue with a non-Catholic here on the CAFs?

If so, I will retract my statement above.

If not, I will ask that you remove the designation “Catholic” from your profile, as it creates scandal and is disingenuous of you to profess to be Catholic yet not offer a single post that supports and upholds the teachings of the Church you claim to be in communion with.

 

[ron77nyc]

ron, would it be fair for me to state that you’re with anyone who disagrees with the Catholic Church?

That is, could you please provide any post you’ve made in which you’ve supported and upheld a teaching of the Catholic Church in a dialogue with a non-Catholic here on the CAFs?

If so, I will retract my statement above.

OK. Post #284

I believe in the real presence of Christ so that’s not a problem.

Jharek is Catholic so this one may not count. I have others but I’ll have to look them up.

 

[tskrobacz]

Matthew 16:17-18: "And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.

And I also say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."

If you read Matt 16:18 in conjunction with the previous verse an alternate, equally rational interpretation emerges. Flesh and blood does not reveal but only our Father who is in heaven. It is upon this truth that Jesus will build his church - the truth that Christ is revealed not by flesh and blood, but by the Father alone. If we look further at Matthew 18:18:

"Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven."
.
We see that the power to bind and loosen is given to all who follow Jesus, the Christ

 

[PRmerger]

Jharek is Catholic so this one may not count.

Right.

I have others but I’ll have to look them up.

Please do.

 

[PRmerger]

We see that the power to bind and loosen is given to all who follow Jesus, the Christ

Can you give an example of a Christian “binding” something, and an example of a Christian “loosening” something, as you understand this text?