Peter is not the rock that Jesus built His church on - so says my dad, the preacher!

[RyanL]

Mystophilus:

The good RyanL and myself have recently been discussing this very thing: there are many Fathers who wrote comments on Peter being the foundation of the Church, and many who wrote on other things being the foundation of the Church. Popular alternatives have included his confession, the faith itself, the truth of doctrine handed down by tradition, and all of the disciples including and following from Peter.

If you’re interested in reading more discussion between the esteemed Mystophilus and I along these lines, as well as discussion regarding the lack of any Church father denying Peter as the rock, see this thread:
Did petros exist as a word b4 Peter?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Semper_Fi_1]

Kevin, ask your father why it is in Acts 15 at the First Council of Jerusalem that when all of the apostle’s are gathered together to settle a dispute between the Gentiles and the Jews, why it is Peter who settles it. He can even use his own KJV.

etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvActs.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=15&division=div1

Once St. Peter spoke, the matter was settled.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Mystophilus:

repeatedly placed the foundation on things other than Peter, but they also both placed the foundation on Peter, as did John Chrysostom.

Yes, I’ve noticed that Catholics are and/both people, not inclined to build dichotomies where they do not exist. It is Peter and his faith/confession. It is Scripture and Tradition. It is one’s personal relationship with Jesus and his Church. We ask intercession from God and the saints. We are called to faith and works.

In contrast, I’ve noticed some Protestants tend toward dichotomies. It’s difficult for them to believe and/both, but often insist upon one OR the other, as if both were not even a possibility.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Here’s a short explanation I’ve user on other Protestant theology forums…

The key was the symbol of authority for the chief minister of the house of David. (see Isaiah 22). This is the symbolic background to Matthew 16, which means that Jesus, the New David, is making Peter the chamberlain of the house of the New David. Peter is going to be the chief steward, under Jesus the king. That is what this passage is saying to us. It is part of the threefold blessing…

1. Blessed are you Simon bar Jonah
2. You are Kepha (Aramaic for ‘rock’, which in Greek is translated ‘Petros’ or Peter). ‘Rock’ was a name previously used only to describe God and Abraham. Christ changed Simon’s name to Rock. This was a profound blessing. Remember, a name change was a blessing (e.g. Abram to Abraham).
3. Given keys to the kingdom, signified prime authority.

This threefold blessing was followed by a threefold denial of Christ by Peter [Mt 26:74], then followed by a threefold affirmation of by Peter of his love for Christ, and a threefold command from Christ to Peter to shepherd the flock [Jn 21:15-17].

The Davidic kingdom always had a chamberlain who possessed the keys to the kingdom, having ministerial authority over all other ministers of the Davidic kingdom. The keys were passed to the successor of this chamberlain. Likewise, Peter was given the keys by Christ Jesus as the new Davidic King. The new Davidic chamberlain had historical successors who continue to the ministerial office of Peter.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I also suggest you look at the Greek for ‘upon this.’ It is ‘epi taute’, and ‘taute’ (Strongs’ 5026) means ‘this, that, the same’. It always means the ‘same’, and never ‘this other’.

Thus, the Greek demonstrative pronoun “taute” is used, which means, “this same” And when used with the Greek work “kai,” the pronoun refers back to the preceding noun, absolutely referring to St. Peter, saying “You are Rock, and upon this very same rock (“kai epi taute petros”)…”

 

[NotWorthy]

I started a new thread on this, but I’d like to add my two cents worth. I’d like to show something that has often been overlooked in the whole “Peter the Rock” scenario. I found this extremely interesting and would like to get your take on it. This comes from “Catholic for a Reason III”:

Matthew notes that six days before the Transfiguration (the Transfiguration took place during the feast of the Tabernacles), which would have been the Feast of Atonement, something quite remarkable took place between Jesus and Peter. Recall that the Feast of the Atonement was the one occasion when the High Priest was permitted to pronounce the hallowed name of God, Yahweh, which was God’s special revelation of His own identity to Moses on Mount Sinai. Recall that God said to Moses, “I Am who I Am”, and “Say this to the people of Israel, 'I Am has sent me to you’” (Ex. 3:13-14). If “Yahweh” or “I Am” is to be the divine name, it is significant that in Matthew 16:15, Jesus asks the apostles, “Who do you say that I Am?” Simon Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the son of the Living God”. Jesus then calls it a direct revelation from God the Father. He says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church” (Mt. 16:17-18). This remarkable passage seems to cast Peter, by his disclosure of Jesus’ previously hidden identity, in the role of the High Priest, who alone speaks the revealed name on the Day of Atonement. Jesus even calls Peter by his given name “Simon Bar-Jona,” which was also the name of a famous High Priest of the Maccabean era whose praises are sung in a passage in Sirach 50:1-20.

It is worth spending this much time recalling this one fulfillment of a Jewish feast because it shows the coinciding of the feast's fulfillment with the establishment of the authority of Peter and the foundation of the Church.  This new Church, of which Peter is to be the rock foundation, will be the heir of the feasts of the Jewish liturgical year, transformed and perfected in Christ, and the agent in the establishment of the new liturgy that will fulfill the old.

Notworthy

 

[Nicene]

Kev ><>:

My dad and I had a long conversation on the phone last night. My dad, a protestant preacher in the non-denom world, says that when Jesus said He would build His church upon this rock He was referring to the faith and truth in what Peter said and not referring to the person of Peter.

How should I approach explaining the Catholic belief to him?(scripture only - he won’t accept the arguments of tradition)

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

Ask him why he is following R.C. Sprouls tradition. If he can follow R.C. Sproul then you have every right to present all of the church fathers in history which contradict a modernist.

If not you have a lot at your disposal in scripture. Timothy for example, and Paul in Acts. As well ask him how Peters faith (not Peter himself) has the keys of the Kingdom and how Peters faith has the power to bind and loose (again not Peter himself).

Peace and God Bless
Nicene

 

[RyanL]

This remarkable passage seems to cast Peter, by his disclosure of Jesus’ previously hidden identity, in the role of the High Priest, who alone speaks the revealed name on the Day of Atonement.

I’ve read a lot of apologetics stuff on Peter, and this is the first time I’ve encountered this! It will bear some looking-into, but if it is as you say (which I have no reason to doubt), this is a pretty powerful argument! Are there other “rare” arguments in the Catholic for a Reason series?

Who says you don’t learn something new every day?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Mystophilus]

itsjustdave1988:

I also suggest you look at the Greek for ‘upon this.’ It is ‘epi taute’, and ‘taute’ (Strongs’ 5026) means ‘this, that, the same’. It always means the ‘same’, and never ‘this other’.

Matthew 12:45

 

[trogiah]

Kev ><>:

My dad and I had a long conversation on the phone last night. My dad, a protestant preacher in the non-denom world, says that when Jesus said He would build His church upon this rock He was referring to the faith and truth in what Peter said and not referring to the person of Peter.

How should I approach explaining the Catholic belief to him?(scripture only - he won’t accept the arguments of tradition)

Thanks,

Kevin

<>

I think that many of us are working under the assumption that if a man (Peter or any other bishop of Rome) were to clearly indicate that they were a flawed person (and they all were) then a true believer in Christ would dismiss the authority of that person.

Scripture tells us, immediately after Simon makes his declaration of faith and Jesus calls him Peter, that Peter said something very wrong and Jesus called him a Satan. I think it is worth noting that even as He said that, he did not take back the keys.

Matthew chapter 23 includes a long diatribe against the scribes, Pharisees and other leaders who keep people from God’s kingdom, don’t enter themselves, and generally don’t have much to look forward to. The interesting part of that chapter is Jesus’s admonition to his disciples to “do everything and observe everything they tell you for they have inherited the seat of Moses.”

Clearly, due respect for historically placed authority is important and doesn’t necessarily depend on the character of those in that position of authority.

I am interested to know what your father would think of those scriptures. - Recognizing of course that “That which seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than that which unites us.” - Pope John XXIII and Pope John Paul II
(Sometimes the Popes actually do get it right.)

peace

-Jim