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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kev
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
ChristianWAB:
I’ve no doubt that you’re correct… at least that *some *of the early Church fathers didn’t agree with this idea.

I was recently reading from a book called "Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture" (published by E Weller and F.C.H. Dreyer in 1960) and on Page 42, they’d written that, “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’”

It seems far more plausible that Jesus would wish for the** truth** (of His being the Son of God) to be the cornerstone and foundation of His Church. Peter, it would seem, was the first to acknowledge the truth… so Jesus renamed him to set the standard; to be the example. Those who, like Peter, accepted the truth of Christ would become a part of the true church as well…
Click to expand...
Don’t forget that the Church holds both positions. (It is not either/or.)

Other considerations would be, [Simon’s name change to Peter and its importance], [the keys given to Peter alone, and the power to bind and loose]…these two considerations are part of this same topic and should be referenced in the same light.

Even if you only choose to believe half of the ‘Peter/rock’ issue, you still have to take into account that Christ gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone, and he also said “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.…”
 
posted by ChristianWAB
Click to expand...
I was recently reading from a book called "Roman Catholicism in the Light of Scripture" (published by E Weller and F.C.H. Dreyer in 1960) and on Page 42, they’d written that, “Only sixteen out of the eighty-four early church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter when He said ‘this rock’”

I would like to read the Church Fathers who disputed that. The Church has held a both postion, Peter is the Rock, and so is his faith. Quoting a Church Father who was commenting on Peter’s faith being the Rock does not negate or show disagreement with Peter being the Rock.

When there was disagreement in the Early church, there was much written on the subject. According to your research, 16 church fathers believed that the Lord referred to Peter as the Rock. Which Church father wrote a disagreement about Peter not being the Rock, and not just a comment on Peter’s faith also being the Rock?

If Sixteen wrote on him being the Rock, personally the Rock and not just his faith, there has to be at least one referring to the fact that Christ was refering to Peter’s faith, and Not him personally. Specifically refuting that Peter was not that Rock but ONLY his faith being the Rock. And with that large of a heresy being written about, there would certainly be many more than one.

But I would certainly like to be pointed to at least one for now.

God Bless
Maria
 
You also have to look at who is the good shepherd. Jesus made that claim during his ministry on earth. But after the resurrection, it was to Peter alone he gave the ‘Shepherdhood’. Feed my sheep he said. Here again Peter takes on the role of the head of the new Israel.

From this we see Peter is the Vicar of Christ on Earth. And that position has continued to be fulfilled by the bishops of rome.
 
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
<>
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hey Kev! My Dad, also a Prot. preacher says the exact same. Send him the marvelous book “Upon This Rock” by Stephen K. Ray and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Just tell him you are so thankful that in your lifetime you have truly found the True Church and the Fullness of the Faith. You are most courageous! May God Bless You Friend~
Sparkle
 
Kev:

Please above all, charity. He is your father and deserve all the honor you can give him. Look long term. Pray before you speak. If you blast him away using truth as ammunition, he may resent the church even further. On the other hand, if you’re humble when you present these things, he might just actually listen to you.

in XT.
 
Beg pardon for getting off topic, but…

Didn’t the tradition (or Tradition, I don’t know which :o ) of giving the Holy Father a new name when elected start with this renaming of Peter? :hmmm: :hmmm:

Because it seems logical… :bounce:
 
Afraid not. It started when a Pope was elected with the name of a pagan god (Mercurius => John II).

Kinda’ made sense to change his name, and the practice stuck.

God Bless,
RyanL
 
Don’t forget, when you talk to your dad, to align this passage with Isaiah 22:22 (I think), where we see that Christ’s actions in giving Peter the key and the power to bind and loosen were intentionally recalling the words used in this Old Testament passage, where the prime minister of Israel is given the charge of the kingdom, just as Peter was given the charge of God’s kingdom after Christ ascended. Protestants don’t know what else to do with the idea that Peter is given the keys, so we have all of these silly jokes about Peter standing outside the Pearly Gates, admitting people in, as if that’s what Christ was really saying is, “Peter, I will build the church upon your confession of faith and make you a bouncer in heaven.” Again, your dad is right, the rock is the confession of faith, but also, given the name change, the man who God chose to express that confession.
 
22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.
 
rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:

Jesus possesses the key to the new kingdom and He has hand selected his faithful steward of the kingdom
 
40.png
sparkle:
Hey Kev! My Dad, also a Prot. preacher says the exact same. Send him the marvelous book “Upon This Rock” by Stephen K. Ray and leave the rest to the Holy Spirit. Just tell him you are so thankful that in your lifetime you have truly found the True Church and the Fullness of the Faith. You are most courageous! May God Bless You Friend~
Sparkle
Click to expand...
In my experience, saying things like “True Church” and “fullness of the Faith” is patronizing (even if it’s true). A less arrogant tack can be helpful: "I came to the point where I couldn’t ignore . . . " “When I learned what the Catholic position really was, it made sense; I couldn’t deny it.”
 
Kev ><>:
How should I approach explaining the Catholic belief to him?(scripture only - he won’t accept the arguments of tradition)
Click to expand...
Kev,

Have him read my blog articles…

**Upon this Rock … is the rock of Matt 16:18 Peter? - **View

Bind and Loose and the Keys of the Kingdom - View

**Unity of Command … not just a good idea, but biblically established **- View
 
40.png
gracelife:
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase “this rock” must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it.” This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Click to expand...
“Here is the bedroom, and this is your bed.” Does “this” mean the “bedroom”?
“It is a very quiet street, and this is my house.” Does “this” mean the “street”?
'outos could be prepositive, postpositive, or pronominal: there is no necessity in it referring to the last previous noun; q.v. Matthew 8:9, 12:45, and 13:22.
 
40.png
MariaG:
If Sixteen wrote on him being the Rock, personally the Rock and not just his faith, there has to be at least one referring to the fact that Christ was refering to Peter’s faith, and Not him personally. Specifically refuting that Peter was not that Rock but ONLY his faith being the Rock. And with that large of a heresy being written about, there would certainly be many more than one.

But I would certainly like to be pointed to at least one for now.
Click to expand...
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.

Some examples:
“[On Matthew 16:18] By rock * he * refers to religious faith”. Theodoret of Cyrus, comm. Cant. 109, in Commentary on the Song of Songs, trans. Robert C. Hill. Centre for Early Christian Studies, Australian Catholic University, Brisbane 2001.

“[On Matthew 16:18] This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being… he will build his church upon this same confession and faith.” Theodore of Mopsuesta, Fragment 92, in Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture, ed. Manlio Simonetti, gen. ed.Thomas C. Oden. Inter-Varsity Press, Illinois, 2002. Theodore goes on to state that the keys of the kingdom are given to every believer who makes the same confession of faith.

“[Of believers] Others are a rock * worthy of that rock on which we stand and which we worship.” Gregorius Nazianzus, orationes 26.9, in St. Gregory of Nazianzus: Select Orations, trans. Martha Vinson. The Catholic University of America Press, Washington, D.C., 2003.

““This rock,” he answered, “and this gate are the Son of God.” “ Hermas, Similitudes 9.12 (c.f. 9.1 ff.)

“You founded the Church on the rock made of faith” Liturgy of St. James, 206.18.

See also:
Eusebius Caesariensis (preparatio evangelica 1.3, et al.)
Modestus Hierosolymitanus (fragmentum homiliae in unguentiferas mulieres)
Hippolytus Romans (de theopania 9)
Theodoretus Cyrrhensis (commentarius in Canticum Canticorum)
Joannes V Hierosolymitanus (opusculum contra iconoclastas 16)
Origen (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), available in English at newadvent.org, et al.)
Basilius Caesariensis Cappadocie (liber in Spiritu sancto 31)
Procopius Gazaeus (comm. in Exodus 33:21)
John Chrysostom (Homily 54 on Matthew, available in English at newadvent.org)

For the ones not marked “available in English”, I have yet to locate a translation or do the work myself, and so they will only be of use to you if you can read Greek (or Latin: there are a few Latin translations available.

Eusebius and Origen repeatedly placed the foundation on things other than Peter, but** they also both placed the foundation on Peter, as did John Chrysostom. Far from regarding this as a heresy, they saw it as natural to read the text in several different ways, which is presumably why the Church does so now.*
 
Kev ><>:
How should I approach explaining the Catholic belief to him?(scripture only - he won’t accept the arguments of tradition)
Click to expand...
With people who believe in the text, the best place to start is with the text, in the Greek: “petros” and “petra”, while not identical, are very obviously morphologically related in petr. While they have different sets of meanings (petra is a mass of rock; petros is a separate piece of rock), there is an overlap: a boulder, or separate, massive piece. In short, the petros is a part of the petra, and, therefore, shares fully in the nature of the petra.

For this reason, many writers through history have read the two words as separate-yet-related, and this has led to the traditional reading that petra refers to Peter and other believers, those others being only the disciples (in some readings) and all believers who confess similarly that Jesus is the Son of God (in other readings). The other reading, that Peter alone is being described, is a derivation of this position, but has become more popular since foolish Protestants began using this text to try to attack Catholics.

In short, there are three types of reading: the disjunctive reading, which says that Peter is an irrelevance; the relative readings, which says that both Peter and other Christians are in view; the exclusive reading, which says that only Peter is meant. While any reading of any text can be supported given enough imagination, the disjunctive and exclusive readings explain less of the petros/petra interplay than do the various relative readings.

Trying to persuade someone to change their reading can be an uphill battle, especially if they subconsciously connect it with the stability and coherence of their own faith.

However, this is your dad whom you are talking about: if you can demonstrate enough wit and wisdom in your argument, he might come over to your side out of sheer paternal pride.
 
It might seem strange, but I don’t find this particular doctrine of the Catholic Church at all difficult to explain or defend.

Jesus took a man called Simon, then said to him -“You are Peter” - in other words He changed his name to Peter, which means “Rock”. Then he said, IN THE SAME SENTENCE, “and upon this rock I will build My Church.”

Jesus’ meaning here is so clear, so explicit, that only those with some preconceived alternate doctrine could fail to accept what He is saying.
 
I’m not really adding anything new here, but Jesus’ words just seem so darn obvious, and He certainly put a great deal of thought and care into them just so they WOULDN’T be misunderstood. To Peter he said “YOU are Rock”. It would seem that if he meant for Peter’s FAITH to be rock he would have said, “your faith is rock”.

Certainly he named Peter as the Rock on which he would build his Church BECAUSE of his profession of faith, but nothing in that passage really seems to suggest that the faith itself is the rock. It seems that those who claim it is are just denying the obvious.

I think it’s really more of a matter of them thinking “I believe this is true so scripture can’t mean this other thing” rather than just letting scripture speak for itself (which Catholics are so often accused of doing 😃 ).

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Many others besides Peter had faith. Why did Christ only say that He would build His Church on Peter’s faith? Why not any of the others? Christ did, for example, grant the power of binding and loosing both to Peter and also to others. Why didn’t He say He would build His Church on their faith as well?
 
40.png
VociMike:
Many others besides Peter had faith. Why did Christ only say that He would build His Church on Peter’s faith? Why not any of the others? Christ did, for example, grant the power of binding and loosing both to Peter and also to others. Why didn’t He say He would build His Church on their faith as well?
Click to expand...
If was only of Peter that Jesus said, "flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father in heaven (Matt 16:17).

The Church WAS built on the foundation of the apostles too (Eph 2:20), but it was PETER who was guided in a special way by God that the other’s were not.

In Christ,
Nancy 🙂
 
Where else in Scripture is anything built on an inaminate thing? It’s always on a person, whether it be in Matthew 16:18, Ephesians 2:20, etc etc etc. Also please see, “Responding to a Baptist Critique of CN Article ‘The Papacy’” in the Features section of catholicismnow.blogspot.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top