Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[AmandaPS]

francisca:

The problem is : our New Testament is not written in Aramaic.

The gospel original text is in GREEK. So most likely the word “Cephas” is translation from “PetroV”, not the other way round.

God Bless U.

John’s gospel is actually translating the Aramaic words Messias and Cephas into the Greek words Christ and Rock.

 

[francisca]

Tantum ergo:

Isn’t it true that there ARE no “original manuscripts” of the gospels, but only manuscript COPIES? And, since the language of the peoples at the time was predominantly Greek, Koine Greek, doesn’t it make sense that a manuscript would be in Greek? Since the followers of Jesus were evangelizing to the nations?

Until today, there are no New Testament manuscripts found written in Aramaic.

Even if it is true that Jesus must have spoken in Aramaic. Yet it doesn’t confirm that the exact word He used was “Cephas”.

Besides, in the Old Testament, the word “Cephas” refers to God.

If it’s true that “Cephas” is only translation from “PetroV”, then “PetroV” carries higher originality.

 

[martino]

In addition to all the other great replies, I wanted to try to make a point that I dont believe has been made yet

---

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

***Protestants claim that the “rock” that Jesus builds His church on is not Peter himself but rather Peter’s profession of faith from verse 16 "***Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ***This claim is discredited by common sense but it can also be discredited by simple grammar. Jesus says “on this rock” I will build my church, but the question is “what rock?” Well the subject referred to as “this rock” is obviously Peter whose name had just been changed to “Rock” in the first part of the very same sentence. That is not only common sense but it is grammatically accurate as well. Protestants try to avoid this truth by claiming that Jesus is referring to Peter’s profession of faith, the problem is the profession of faith occurs two verses back, before Jesus gives Peter the name Rock. The subject of “this rock” in verse 18 cannot be taken from verse 16, especially when the subject of verse 18 is Peter. “This rock” can only refer to the subject noun that immediately precedes it. The Protestant interpretation requires that we ignore common sense as well as simple grammar by skipping over the obvious subject of the verse and going 2 verses back to attach a subject for “this rock”. ***

---

***I would like to hear a Protestant give an answer for this problem. I am sure that they have one but I have not heard it. ***

 

[Dr.Colossus]

rfk:

Pope St. Clement I wrote a reproving letter to the Corinthian Church in 96 AD. In this letter, Clement evidently writes officially, with all that authority of the Roman Church of which Ignatius and Irenaeus have so much to say. It is also observed that he did not sign it as “Clement”, or “Bishop of Rome”. He signed it as the Church of Rome.

Here are more sources from the early Church Fathers:

**

Clement of Alexandria

**
“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James
“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).
Continued…

 

[Dr.Colossus]

Origen"*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" (*Commentary on Matthew **13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church **4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
“The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly” (*Catechetical Lectures *2:19 [A.D. 350]).

“[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him. . . . While the error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all, for Peter was there—he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]” (ibid., 6:14).

“In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9:32–34]” (ibid., 17:27).
Continued…

 

[Dr.Colossus]

**

Ephraim the Syrian

**
“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (*The Faith *4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (*Against Jovinian *1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

Pope Innocent I
“In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged” (*Letters *29:1 [A.D. 408]).

Augustine
“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (*Sermons *295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Continued…

 

[Dr.Colossus]

(Augustine Continued)
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (*Commentary on Psalm 108 *1 [A.D. 415]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (*Commentary on John *56:1 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’” (*Acts of the Council, *session 2 [A.D. 431]).

“Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’” (ibid., session 3).

Pope Leo I
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it” (*Letters *10:1 [A.D. 445).

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery” (ibid., 10:2–3).

“Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

What we have here is a succession of Church leaders who, for 350 years held the exact same opinion of the Bishop of Rome. The earliest source (which rfk provided) was written while some of the Gospels were likely still being composed. The rest show a remarkably similar understanding of the primacy of Rome’s bishop.

 

[Myhrr]

The Church wasn’t organised to be under the authority of any of the Apostles, see Christ’s original ruling.

None of the bishops of the Church in any other place ever made such a claim, not even Ignatius who had the pre-eminent right to claim succession from Peter. They considered the couple of bishops in Rome who first tried to use this claim to be arrogant as well as wrong. This claim from Rome had small beginnings but from the fourth century these got stronger, perhaps in some sort of ratio to the city of Rome’s decline in importance as Constantinople’s grew when it was chosen to be the new capital of the Empire.

A list of out of context quotes don’t really help to understand this situation. Have you even read Tertullian’s? If you do please note that he says anyone who makes the same confession as Peter is granted those same keys.

Your apologetics continually use such garbled information in lists like these hoping that the sheer amount will overwhelm any further enquiry, but if you do enquire further you’ll find that the discussion about Peter’s role was never in conjunction with claims to Rome having sole succession and anyway you’ll find more fathers saying the rock is Peter’s revelation From God the Father. Even Origen says this, for all the use of him in this list.

Antioch is still the See of Peter - so how do you explain your claim to ‘sole succession’?

 

[rfk]

Dr. Colossus:

What we have here is a succession of Church leaders who, for 350 years held the exact same opinion of the Bishop of Rome. The earliest source (which rfk provided) was written while some of the Gospels were likely still being composed. The rest show a remarkably similar understanding of the primacy of Rome’s bishop.

At first, when I was scanning through all the references you posted, I was thinking that the only problem was some of them were 400+ years after Christ’s death on the cross.

But then I read your conclusion, and I see the value of pointing out 350 years of consistency. Thanks.

 

[martino]

In addition to all the other great replies, I wanted to try to make a point that I dont believe has been made yet

13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.

***Protestants claim that the “rock” that Jesus builds His church on is not Peter himself but rather Peter’s profession of faith from verse 16 "***Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” ***This claim is discredited by common sense but it can also be discredited by simple grammar. Jesus says “on this rock” I will build my church, but the question is “what rock?” Well the subject referred to as “this rock” is obviously Peter whose name had just been changed to “Rock” in the first part of the very same sentence. That is not only common sense but it is grammatically accurate as well. Protestants try to avoid this truth by claiming that Jesus is referring to Peter’s profession of faith, the problem is the profession of faith occurs two verses back, before Jesus gives Peter the name Rock. The subject of “this rock” in verse 18 cannot be taken from verse 16, especially when the subject of verse 18 is Peter. “This rock” can only refer to the subject noun that immediately precedes it. The Protestant interpretation requires that we ignore common sense as well as simple grammar by skipping over the obvious subject of the verse and going 2 verses back to attach a subject for “this rock”. ***

***I would like to hear a Protestant give an answer for this problem. I am sure that they have one but I have not heard it. ***

very good!

 

[Myhrr]

I don’t know how a Protestant would reply to this, but I heard an Orthodox explain it by including in the equation that revelation is feminine in Greek so Petra refers to the the feminine revelation which is the Rock on which the Church is built as well as the confession of Peter which Christ said he couldn’t have had unless it came from the Father.

In that He reminded Simon that he’d given him a name meaning rock so as a mnemonic it must have been a very powerful one for Peter at the time.

From 1 Peter it’s clear that Peter says Christ is the Rock, so if Peter didn’t think Christ meant the Church would be built on him, but on the revelation, who are we to argue?

Although having said that, Paul’s tiff with Peter about equality might show that Peter did go on a bit of an ego trip for a while…

Paul stayed with Peter for a while and then Peter took him to meet James who was the real leader of the Church, as it’s shown in the First Council of Jerusalem.

James was Bishop of Jerusalem for 30 years and the Divine Liturgy which the Orthodox use came from him, it’s still used. The Jews call him James the Just and are generally quite surprised if not antagonistic when told that he was bishop for thirty years, he is held in very high regard by the Jews, known then by all in Jerusalem for his sincere spirituality and some of them wanted him to be the High Priest.

The Orthodox say that James wasn’t an actual follower of Christ before the resurrection, but became one after when Christ came to James after the Resurrection and asked him to run the Church. James perhaps best of all the disciples understood Christ’s mission and the warnings about the destruction of the Temple which was the only place allowed for sacrifices because the Divine Liturgy of St James pre-empts that loss and continues the sacrifices in the Temple through Christ.

Anyway, a bit of a ramble there, I think this whole argument from the RCC about Peter and the Rock without any merit whatsoever.

But I continued to ramble and the post got too long, so::

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued

The Orthodox also say that the RCC is the first Protestant Church, you’ll have to check but I think the arguments are that Augustine’s influence on the Church took it into another direction and he himself said that he put his own revelation and reading of the Scriptures above the teachings of the Church at the time, he knew he was disagreeing with what the Church taught but didn’t care. His views prevailed in the West because of his political strength especially in having Pelagius banned, mind you, Augustine was still arguing against him thirty years after Pelagius had died, but while alive and able to defend himself in person at several councils the Church always found for Pelagius and against Augustine.

In a like manner to Protestants I think the arguments from the RCC about Peter and Rock.

Verses are taken out of context by the RCC and then joined together to ‘prove’ that Peter is the Rock and then disregarding all verses to the contrary which specifically state in Christ’s own words that there is to be no authority of one member over the other, as the Gentile lords rule, the RCC disregards the actual organisation of the Church according to this rule just like some Christians disregard tradition.

Although in the early Church tradition Peter does not have absolute authority over the other bishops, he submitted himself to James’ ruling remember, nor over the other members of the royal priesthood, and although all the records show the organisation of the Church was according to this rule of Christ’s and still continued through the centuries in all the other Patriarchates except Rome, the RCC adds to this the out of nowhere claim that the bishops of Rome have sole succession from Peter.

HOW? Persistent enquiry will narrow it down to one reason, because Peter died in Rome. So what? Christ died in Jerusalem.

St Ignatius of Antioch says he is the successor of both Peter and Paul and in his last letter to Rome he commends the Church on keeping the faith according to the same two Apostles. He doesn’t even address the letter to the “Bishop of Rome” as he does in his letter to Polycarp the Bishop of Smyrna for example, did Rome even have a single bishop? Or was it still in the early stages of organisation where there were several bishops in the area?

I think the latter, it wasn’t until the First Council of Nicaea that Rome under one bishop was given jurisdiction over the other bishops in the Italian areas and this was given to Rome by the fathers of the Church at that council so that Rome would have the same organisational structure that already existed in Antioch and Alexandria etc.

From where in all that do you get the Bishop of Rome with universal jurisdiction because Peter died in Rome?

The RCC continued to travel along this strange road in the following centuries, until even the claim that the Bishop of Rome was the successor of Peter wasn’t strong enough for its growing desire for power over the Church and this was changed to successor of Christ as if the Bishop of Rome was Peter himself. Then even that wasn’t enough and the claim became that the Bishop of Rome was Christ Himself on earth for the Church.

I really think you don’t understand how offensive all that has been to the other members of the Church who continued to insist that only Christ Himself is the Head of the Church and he arranged for the Holy Spirit to replace him on earth and not one of the bishops against Christ’s own ruling on this.

I’m not saying that the RCC isn’t guided by the Holy Spirit only that it doesn’t have authority to impose its organisation over any other member.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued

I think this is where the RCC have such difficulty understanding the organisation of the Orthodox Church, each bishop together with the other members of the royal priesthood is the whole Church under the Head of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit.

In the RCC the Pope has claimed all of that infallibly for himself by saying only those who submit to him are actually in the Church.

There was a good link posted on another thread about the difference, saying that in the Orthodox Church, because each member is equal, that guidance can come via any of them whatever their particular gifts, so any bishop, priest, monk, nun, other can speak with authority because each can work to acquire the Holy Spirit for himself and the example given was Patriarch Pavle. I’ll find it for you if you’re interested in exploring the differences.

No bishop in this organisation can ever claim to be in authority over any other bishop, jurisdictional areas are for administrative convenience not for some sort of spiritual authority above Christ’s, and likewise no bishop has spiritual authority over the other members of the royal priesthood. This is a completely different organisation from the RCC and those Churches agreeing to submit their intellect and will to the Pope and magesterium.

I’m not sure how all the Protestants Churches understand this, but the Anglican has a mixture of it; the organisation is more like the Orthodox, but it has the RCC idea of Apostolic succession that a ‘valid’ succession is one where the line can connect to the early Church. The Orthodox say that succession is by staying in the Church, if a bishop leaves for any reason he is no longer in succession. There’s also a lot of strange things happening in the Orthodox Church with some of the Patriarchs trying to introduce the idea of supreme head over the bishops in their jurisdictions.

Which particular Protestant Church has its main dogma that all you have to do is believe in Christ? After a while in all these arguments I often feel like joining them…

Ah well, as they say, it’ll all come out in the wash…

 

[copland]

martino,

**The Protestant interpretation requires that we ignore common sense as well as simple grammar by skipping over the obvious subject of the verse and going 2 verses back to attach a subject for “this rock”.

*I would like to hear a Protestant give an answer for this problem. I am sure that they have one but I have not heard it. ***

Oh! The Holy Spirit reveals it to them. Everyone who has made their little profession of faith has that “ability/gift” to interpret Scripture for themselves. It is called sola scriptura. Though I guess the Holy Spirit is into relativism because He seems to have told all the Protestants a bunch of different things about all these different doctrines.(baptism necessary verses just a sign, Trintity verses Jesus only, once saved always saved verses works salvation, free will verses Hyper-Calvinism, etc etc) Is it not logical to ignore what the Church has believed for the last 2000 years and believe some good ol’ 400 year old trickle down theology? http://forums.catholic-questions.or...atholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[francisca]

I personally think that PetroV is a good name for an old fisherman . Besides it was given to simon as a complement from The Lord himself. I still believe thatThe Pope has a special charisma of leading the Church as told by The Lord. Yet it doesn’t mean that The Pope has to be THE SAME as God. The Pope is not The Foundation, Jesus is! The Pope is a special rock that Jesus gives special charisma to lead the church on earth.

Peter has limitted power, because his power is temporal. Yet he has divine power if He represent God as told by God. But if he exercise his power out of his own humanity, this power is temporal. Because all human are temporal. Only God is eternal. That is why Pope has the power that is called “temporal power” that is not seperate definitively from his charisma of holding “the key of heaven”.

We all are bound to RESPECT The Pope as The Pope (as told by Jesus), and WORSHIP God as Who HE is. I am catholic, but I refuse to worship The Pope. I respect him a lot though. And I’m sure that’s enough for him .

 

[bob]

Excavations in the Holy Land has some interesting note on “the rock”

In the area of Caesarea Philippi is a rock formation at Banyas. It was in the area where Jesus declared Peter “the Rock”. At the base of the formation are caves also known as “the gates of hell” where there a temples to pagan gods. The rock here is massive, not pebbles…

See christianleadershipcenter.org/bibarch17.htm

I quote from the extract: "A solid, immovable Rock–that is the essence of the faith in Christ revealed to Peter. This image of the revelation of the church’s solid foundation in the person and work of Christ can be appreciated all the more by visualizing the strength and security of such a rock.

On the rock at the mouth of the cave was a temple to a pagan god. Jesus declared he would build his church on a rock. Not this rock, a physical rock, in a specific location, but on the revelation of himself to Peter and the others, on the nature of the Messiah. Jesus no doubt was alluding to the surroundings when he used that imagery.

And the “gates of Hell” will not prevail against his building. We have been looking at “gates" in some of the ruins, and will see more of them in Israelite cities. It was in the gates that the leaders sat to make decisions and judgments, that the elders sat as jury (Book of Ruth), that the people milled about in business and socializing. The image here represents “leaders” who would sit in the gates–Satan and his powerful servants. Jesus is saying that the “powerful leaders of Hell” will not prevail against the Church.”

Not only do we have the Aramiac translation of Kephas, we also have a massive physical rock formation at which Jesus declared Peter “the Rock”. What other proof do we need?

 

[John_Henry]

francisca:

Until today, there are no New Testament manuscripts found written in Aramaic.

Even if it is true that Jesus must have spoken in Aramaic. Yet it doesn’t confirm that the exact word He used was “Cephas”.

Besides, in the Old Testament, the word “Cephas” refers to God.

If it’s true that “Cephas” is only translation from “PetroV”, then “PetroV” carries higher originality.

No, there no NT manuscripts in Aramaic, but there were. The Fathers attest to them. John 1:42 attests to the fact that Jesus definitely used the word “Cephas”. So, Petros was a translation from Kepha and not vice versa.

As for God being the rock in the OT (and Jesus in the NT), that is exactly why it is important that Peter was also called “rock”. It indicates that Jesus (God) was passing off some of his authority to Peter to rule in his stead.

 

[AmandaPS]

francisca:

I personally think that PetroV is a good name for an old fisherman . Besides it was given to simon as a complement from The Lord himself. I still believe thatThe Pope has a special charisma of leading the Church as told by The Lord. Yet it doesn’t mean that The Pope has to be THE SAME as God. The Pope is not The Foundation, Jesus is! The Pope is a special rock that Jesus gives special charisma to lead the church on earth.

Peter has limitted power, because his power is temporal. Yet he has divine power if He represent God as told by God. But if he exercise his power out of his own humanity, this power is temporal. Because all human are temporal. Only God is eternal. That is why Pope has the power that is called “temporal power” that is not seperate definitively from his charisma of holding “the key of heaven”.

We all are bound to RESPECT The Pope as The Pope (as told by Jesus), and WORSHIP God as Who HE is. I am catholic, but I refuse to worship The Pope. I respect him a lot though. And I’m sure that’s enough for him .

Who says that Catholics must worship the Pope? And for that matter who says that Catholics believe that the Pope is the same as God? Any Catholic here will tell you that the Pope is not worshipped. He is the Vicar of Christ. He is a servant of Christ.

 

[Myhrr]

bob:

Not only do we have the Aramiac translation of Kephas, we also have a massive physical rock formation at which Jesus declared Peter “the Rock”. What other proof do we need?

I think there is more than enough proof to show that the primary meaning is that Christ, the revelation Peter had, is the Rock. What we need is a bit more common sense.

Not one, not even one, of the arguments for the RCC’s claim to sole Petrine authority can stand up to common sense.

1 Peter 2 says Christ is the Rock, but the RCC ignores everything that shows its claim to be false. The real question here is what are you RCC going to do about it?

These are beautiful words, they’re addressed to us now as they were then:

**1 Peter 2
**1 Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, all evil speakings,
2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3 If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4 To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
10 Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

For those of you who still enjoy arguing about this, try your apologetics against these arguments:

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/rock.html

For those of us who like to argue by quoting the fathers, here’s two, the first is the successor of Peter and Paul in Antioch who wrote to the Church in Rome, not to anyone in particular, commending them for keeping to the traditions as established in rome also by Peter and Paul:

Saint Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Philadelphians

[Chapter 9] The Comforter is holy, and the Word is holy, the Son of the Father, by whom He made all things, and exercises a providence over them all. This is the Way which leads to the Father, the Rock, the Defence, the Key, the Shepherd, the Sacrifice, the Door of knowledge, through which have entered Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Moses and all the company of the prophets, and these pillars of the world, the apostles, and the spouse of Christ, on whose account He poured out His own blood, as her marriage portion, that He might redeem her.

The second is from Saint Justin Martyr, Second Apology
[Chapter 113] For I have shown that Christ was proclaimed by the prophets in parables a Stone and a Rock.

[Chapter 114] And our hearts are thus circumcised from evil, so that we are happy to die for the name of the good Rock, which causes living water to burst forth for the hearts of those who by Him have loved the Father of all, and which gives those who are willing to drink of the water of life.

I think it important to remember that the title of the Church is the Apostolic Church, all the Apostles including Peter and Peter is not mentioned. And as Ignatius said, where Christ is there is the Catholic Church.

I think all of you should write to your bishops and complain about this.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

bernmutt:

…I can’t imagine Peter…should declare infallible statements, like the Pope did in 1950 in infallibly declaring the Assumption of Mary…

I want to respond to this point although since bernmutt has been banned he might not read it.

Think about the context of what was going on during these passages:

(1) Jesus asks the question who the Son of Man is. (Mt 16:13-15)

(2) Peter makes the correct statement that Jesus is the Messiah (Mt 16:16)

(3) Jesus tells Peter that he made an infallible statement (Mt 16:17)

(4) Jesus tells Peter that he is the Rock that He will build His Church. (Mt 16:18)

Recap of Mt 16:16-18 -

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” 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. 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.

There’s Biblical documentation of an infallible statement by St. Peter.