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

[mark_a]

Myhrr:

continued

As you might get from the above I’d find it rather difficult to imagine that… her father was old and frail and said he wouldn’t make the attempt with them, heartbroken to leave him behind he told her to remember wherever she saw a cross she would find friends. That’s what’s important about Christianity me.

The arguments about Peter are actually irrelevant, the nitty gritty is that you can’t show your tradition of organisation to be anything but what Christ specifically forbade the Church to be, so perhaps you are one of the other flocks the Church knows nothing about…

Myhrr-

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. But my point is: why try “un-selling” us on Peter (or Mary, communion, confession, the pope, communion of saints, faith and works, scripture and tradition, deuterocanonicals, priests, abortion, death penalty, euthenasia, infant baptism, sacraments, etc. etc.) if you aren’t making a better offer?

I think I understand how you feel, because I was on the opposite side of the fence with people (supposedly Christians) hurling insults (bead mumbler, going to hell because I went to church with Blacks or because we all went to drink the wine, idol worshiper, etc) at me. Insulting behavior just doesn’t work from either side of the fence. God knows I’m trying to quit, too.

So what do you have to offer?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

{To Myrrh…}

You could also have mentioned that in Revelation, it is Christ who “has the keys of death and Hell”.​

IMO, too much apologetic is taken up with Peter, in a way that ignores the other Apostles. This is as unbalanced as denying that he had any particular primacy, even of honour.
Peter is one of a communion - there is no communion if one is alone. And headship, implies a body. The head needs the body, just as the body needs the head.

As you say, the Church is Apostolic. The “mark” is Apostolicity - not “Petrinity” . ##

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Myrhh quote

Paul said to hold to the traditions as handed down, are we supposed to have blind faith in anyone who says that they are the only holders of this tradition? Why?

If it bothers us we might then make enquiries and if we find that there are some also with unbroken connection to the early Church but teaching something different then a conflict arises in us, who should we believe?

Christ didn’t say anything about contraception that was recorded in the Gospels and anyway that’s a whole different subject for another thread, but he was quite clear on the subject here, that none of the Apostles were to have authority over any other member of the Church. The extant documents from the first three centuries show that’s how the Church was organised. The Orthodox still have this organisation, though there are some trying to change it, the RCC don’t.

Which Church is telling the truth?

If a particular teaching hasn’t continued correctly in one Church but it has in another doesn’t that mean that Christ has ensured his teaching continued correctly?

Perhaps we should all sit around a table and really find out who’s kept what instead of all the different Churches claiming they have all of the truth and then having to bluster or fib or devise new doctrine to account for the changes they’ve made…

New from Tim

Myrhh that is the point, if you cannot trust the traditions as handed down by the catholic Church then you cannot trust any tradition becasue you cannot identify what is true tradition and what may not be true, it is all based on the words of men. Even the Gospel and the veracity of it is based on the words of men.

What do you base your belief in Christ on, nothing other than the words of men. You may say that the gospel etc is from God but you must rely on the words of men of bygone times to affirm to you that is the case. If you are going to affirm that God ensured the bible was faithfully maintained in its original scriptural format then you must also accept that God would have ensured that we have the correct teaching/understanding of what those scriptures mean.

If he has not ensured that we have a correct understanding of what the scriptures mean then it means that the vast majority of Christianity after Christ until the last few hundered years were not in fact Christian.

It serves no purpose for God to abandon humanity up until the reformation and then suddenly bring back the real teaching. It would mean that those previous to the reformation are all damned.

if they are not damned for all the supposed incorrect beliefs they held then ultiamtley no one can be damned becasue it would be quite obvious that no one has the true meaning and the incorrect meaning does not cost us anything.

I don’t like the Churches teaching on contraception, but I accept it and practice according to the Church, 4 children are the result.

You are free to believe what you want Myrhh, but Christianity stands on catholicism, if it does not then we can never know when and where and with whom on what teachings God stands.

God has to have ensured that the Catholic Church be the true Church, not becasue I am catholic but because if he has not my faith is based purely on arbitary beliefs, much like, Islam, hindu and the various other beliefs aroudn the world.

By the way, contraception does impact upon this area, ALL of Christianity believed and taught contraception to be sinful, that was the TEACHING of all Christian groups prior to the Lambeth conference.

Remember, there is no grey area here, either contraception was either always right or it was always wrong, if it was always wrong then can any group on any of its teaching claim that God is with them, the answer is NO.

The ball rolls on Myrhh, time rolls on. You have a choice, embrace catholicism or live a lie.

In Christ

Tim

 

[Scott_Waddell]

Responding to Mark a:

I think I understand how you feel, because I was on the opposite side of the fence with people (supposedly Christians) hurling insults (…going to hell because I went to church with Blacks…)

Really?! What denomination is this?

Scott

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

continued to steve b

That’s some game of musical chairs Peter was playing, of course you say that was then, now you say more logically that if a bishop of Rome dies on his travels the chair stays in Rome.

Using your current logic the Antiochian Church says it is the successor of Peter because he established his first see in Antioch, don’t you think your chair argument a bit wooden as a logical reason for your claim to sole Petrine succession against Antioch?

So what have we got so far? The tortuous reasoning can’t even get past Ignatius who was still alive in the early one hundreds who said he was successor to both Peter and Paul and he didn’t write to a named bishop of Rome who called himself the sole Petrine successor, but to the Church in rome which was also honoured to have been taught by Peter and Paul. Actually no mention of a successor to either of them in rome…

I think you should write to your bishop and complain.

Good luck

To make this easy, here is Ignatius letters to the 7 Church’s. I referred you to the salutations because in those salutations, much is said, but take notice also what is NOT said in the other salutations… Except for the epistle to Rome, the salutations are relatively short. I draw your attention to the fact, only Rome is mentioned by Ignatius in the position of the presidency. That’s because here is where the chair of Peter is.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1798_305911 Epistle to Rome

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-18.htm#P1605_276905 Epistle to the Trallians

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-17.htm#P1395_249131 Epistle to the Magnesians

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-16.htm#P1094_206540 Epistle to the Ephesians

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#P1942_328453 Epistle to the Philadelphians

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-21.htm#P2124_357571 Epistle to the Smyrnaeans

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-29.htm#P2684_440855 Epistle to the Antiochians

 

[Myhrr]

Hello all, I’ve only just been able to get back to this, will reply to what I can tonight and continue tomorrow, taking the last first.

Steve b, I do understand that you love your Church, I’ve no quarrel with that, but when the early fathers say Church they mean, as the Orthodox still do, the One Church which is in various places.

Ignatius’ claim to fame in the ecclesiology of the Church is that he describes how it is organised around a bishop. Each bishop with his flock constitutes the whole Church.

Each member including the bishop is an equal member of the laity, there is no division of laity apart from the bishop. Baptism is what makes each a member of the Church, there is no higher ‘rank’, the ‘hierarchy’ are the servants. That is what’s meant by the royal priesthood, the priesthood of believers.

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-20.htm#TopOfPage

This is what Ignatius means in his letter above to the Philadephians when he reminds to maintain union, to have one eucharist "as there is one bishop etc.".

Bearing in mind that he is making a strong point “Take ye heed” about unity in the Church, why is he so remiss, failing to mention that ‘the Pope sole successor of Peter in Rome’ is over them? And adding, over all bishops?

Rome doesn’t get a mention because your ecclesiology is not what the fathers meant by Church.

who have been appointed by the will of God the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ, who, according to His own will, has firmly established His Church upon a rock, by a spiritual building, not made with hands, against which the winds and the floods have beaten, yet have not been able to overthrow it:3* yea, *

What does Ignatius mean here by rock? Is he referring to himself as successor of Peter?

For as many as are of God and of Jesus Christ are also with the bishop. And as many as shall, in the exercise of repentance, return into the unity of the Church, these, too, shall belong to God, that they may live according to Jesus Christ. Do not err, my brethren. If any man follows him that makes a schism in the Church, he shall not inherit the kingdom of God. If any one walks according to a strange13 opinion, he agrees not with the passion [of Christ.].

Again, unity is with the bishop not with Rome.

Let governors be obedient to Caesar; soldiers to those that command them; deacons to the presbyters, as to high-priests; the presbyters, and deacons, and the rest of the clergy, together with all the people, and the soldiers, and the governors, and Caesar [himself], to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as Christ to the Father.

Each bishop has Christ above him.

*For there is one God of the Old and New Testament, “one Mediator between God and men,” *

Christ. Not the bishop of rome.

continued

 

[Myhrr]

continued to steve b

Let’s take a look at his letter to the Romans, below:

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-19.htm#P1798_305911

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who formed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit,2* worthy of being deemed holy,3 and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, and is possessed of the Spirit, which I also salute in the name of Almighty God, and of Jesus Christ His Son: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments, who are filled inseparably with all the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, * abundance of happiness unblameably, in God, even the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ.*

Please, remember when you read the above that St Ignatius of Antioch is known by all the Church and knows himself as successor to both Peter and Paul in Antioch.

Do you really read forelock pulling here and not generosity of spirit?

To the Church…*the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, *

Oh, that Church.

Not to the Church which presides in place of all the world…

…from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth… One Church in different places.

I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;

…but heed me anyway…

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it]. But as for me, I am ashamed to be counted one of them; for indeed I am not worthy, as being the very last of them

Why didn’t he say the Bishop of Rome instead of God? Because Jesus Christ alone will oversee it.

In the Church each member is equal through the baptism, the bishop is not apart from the laity, but one member of the laity.

This is the letter I meant to Polycarp

Ignatius to Polycarp ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-24.htm#TopOfPage

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.

Why didn’t he tell Polycarp that the Bishop of Rome was his bishop?

Having obtained good proof that thy mind is fixed in God as upon an immoveable rock, I loudly glorify [His name]

This is how the successor of Peter in Antioch understands the solid foundation on which the Church is built.

***What’s missing in all of these letters? ****

Ignatius thinks Rome is just another place where the Church is, nothing more.

It was also the capital city of the vast Roman empire and they were taking him there to kill him for his faith.*

 

[mark_a]

Scott Waddell:

Responding to Mark a:

Really?! What denomination is this?

Scott

Baptist. I believe it was an independant.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

Myrhh, and every Protestant type person,

in this whole Peter and Rock thing, it can be all put in context by the simple fact that Jesus changed Simons name to Rock (Peter) and then continued to call him so afterwards.

Why do you think Christ decided to start calling him ROCK.

 

[Apologia100]

Tim Hayes:

Myrhh, and every Protestant type person,

in this whole Peter and Rock thing, it can be all put in context by the simple fact that Jesus changed Simons name to Rock (Peter) and then continued to call him so afterwards.

Why do you think Christ decided to start calling him ROCK.

Just to add to this point, how many other people in the entire bible does God change the name of? And when God changes someone’s name, He changes their nature.

Abram (the father is exalted) becomes Abraham (the father of a host of nations.
Jacob (may God protect) becomes Israel (you have contended with divine beings and prevailed)
Simon (He who listens) becomes Peter (the Rock)

 

[Fiat]

Myrrh stated the following:

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?

It’s tortured logic to assume that just because a metaphor is used in one place in scripture then the interpretation of that metaphor must be used exclusively in absolutely every other reference in scripture. If you assume that because scripture identifies Christ as “THE ROCK” in one instance then he must be THE ROCK in every other instance, then how do you deal with metaphors that describe Abraham as the rock in Isaiah 51:1-2, or God as the rock in 1 Sam 2:2, Psalms 18:31, Isa 44:8?

Just because Jesus is our one true rock doesn’t mean that Peter isn’t our rock in a lesser way. After all, there are shepherds with the one true shepherd (John 10:16; 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:20); Bishops with the one Bishop, Pastors with the One Pastor of our Souls (1 Pet 2:25; 5:2-4; 1 Tim 3:15; Titus 1:7; Eph 4:11).

In Matt 24:45, Jesus asks, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time?” Here we have Christ suggesting that a single man-servant would be in charge of His house. In John 21:15-19 we have Christ charging Peter with the responsibility of “feeding his sheep.”

I think you’re on your way to being a beautiful Catholic Christian. I’m praying for you, buddy!

 

[bob]

Myhrr:

Have you looked at the Valentine page I posted? Since it was written in Greek it should be translated according to the Greek rules of grammar and it says that the demonstrative pronoun in Greek in such a sentence refers back to the subject, suggesting that Christ figuratively or otherwise pointed at himself while saying this. But you’ll have to argue grammar and language with someone else, I’m not up to it…

So much for Greek grammar (sounds like Reverse Polish notation). Does this verse below mean Jesus is telling Peter that Jesus himself is feeding his lambs and sheep?

John 21:15-18
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

Based on your Greek grammar, Jesus is feeding his own lambs and sheep and Peter is declaring that he loves himself?

Myhrr:

What’s the context of this? Isn’t it about forgiveness? As we forgive we loose others from hell. Why would anyone want to read it as authority to use over others to keep them enslaved and in fear? Christ said he didn’t come to destroy but to save.

Who has been given authority to forgive sins here?

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Is Jesus giving himself the authority or passing it to Peter and the disciples?

How much clearer can we get with the above two verses?

 

[ricatholic]

Apologia100:

Just to add to this point, how many other people in the entire bible does God change the name of? And when God changes someone’s name, He changes their nature.

Abram (the father is exalted) becomes Abraham (the father of a host of nations.
Jacob (may God protect) becomes Israel (you have contended with divine beings and prevailed)
Simon (He who listens) becomes Peter (the Rock)

Lets look at how the change in Simon to Peter could come about. During Jesus’ ministry Simon does learn and listen. Then later on he becomes like a rock, unhearing. Then Jesus even goes so far as to call the Rock >Satan a few verses after first changing his name from he who listens.

The point being, if we give credience to the first name change, Simon>Peter, then shouldn’t we give credience to the next change when Jesus called Peter>Satan?

Or are we free to pick and choose which verses we will use when it suits our purposes?

Peace

 

[cestusdei]

ri, you are the one who does that. In John Jesus tells Peter 3 times to feed my sheep. In Acts Peter is clearly head of the Church. He is revered as chief apostle and martyr. You only denigrate him because you covet his job for yourself. You want to be the rock, but you end up as sand. Shifting and eroding on the waves of your own errors.

 

[Apologia100]

ricatholic:

Lets look at how the change in Simon to Peter could come about. During Jesus’ ministry Simon does learn and listen. Then later on he becomes like a rock, unhearing. Then Jesus even goes so far as to call the Rock >Satan a few verses after first changing his name from he who listens.

The point being, if we give credience to the first name change, Simon>Peter, then shouldn’t we give credience to the next change when Jesus called Peter>Satan?

Or are we free to pick and choose which verses we will use when it suits our purposes?
Peace

That may be the most bizarre interpretation of “Rock” I have ever heard. The application of Rock means foundation, not deaf or obstinate. Talk about picking and choosing what you want to believe.

 

[ricatholic]

Apologia100:

That may be the most bizarre interpretation of “Rock” I have ever heard. The application of Rock means foundation, not deaf or obstinate. Talk about picking and choosing what you want to believe.

I will admit that I probably was taking the sublime to the ridiculous, but by the same token how can we take Jesus calling Peter “rock”(then satan) mean all that the church says it means about the position of pontiff without a little creativity?

I am making the assuption that there was something to Jesus calling Peter Satan as well as something to Jesus calling Peter rock.

Peace

 

[steve_b]

Myhrr:

continued to steve b

[snip] for space

Please, remember when you read the above that St Ignatius of Antioch is known by all the Church and knows himself as successor to both Peter and Paul in Antioch.

The apostles were all apostles, hand picked by Jesus, yet Peter was selected leader of the rest. Ignatius was a bishop just like all the other bishops, but Ignatius did not sit on the chair of Peter.

Myhrr:

To the Church…*the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, *

Oh, that Church.

Not to the Church which presides in place of all the world…

You dismiss the fact that none of the other Church’s preside. Rome was the only one mentioned who presides. Defference is being made to Peter’s chair.

Myhrr:

…from the Church in Rome to the Church in Corinth… One Church in different places.

Still doesn’t diminish the fact that Rome presides.

Myhrr:

I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles;

…but heed me anyway…

obedience to authority is a good thing in God’s eyes…

Myhrr:

Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me.

• [snip] for space*

Why didn’t he say the Bishop of Rome instead of God? Because Jesus Christ alone will oversee it.

No argument here. Ignatius is going to be martyred. Until a replacement can be made, Antioch will be without a physical bishop. It never diminishes that Jesus is always in charge anyway over every single soul. Now whether we let Him reign in us is another thing.

Myhrr:

In the Church each member is equal through the baptism, the bishop is not apart from the laity, but one member of the laity.

This is a rather low view of holy orders vs the laity.

Myhrr:

This is the letter I meant to Polycarp

Ignatius to Polycarp ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-24.htm#TopOfPage

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.

Why didn’t he tell Polycarp that the Bishop of Rome was his bishop?

All bishops look to God as their head. Yet Ignatius knew Rome was in the position of Presidency due to Peter’s chair… That is the way Jesus set it up.

Myhrr:

Having obtained good proof that thy mind is fixed in God as upon an immoveable rock, I loudly glorify [His name]

This is how the successor of Peter in Antioch understands the solid foundation on which the Church is built.
Jesus is known as Rock, and Jesus names Simon, Rock. There’s no conflict here. Ignatius was not known as Rock, nor did he ascend to the chair of Peter.

Myhrr:

***What’s missing in all of these letters? ***

Ignatius thinks Rome is just another place where the Church is, nothing more.

Shall I print JUST the salutations of his letters to the Church’s? The picture is very clear from his greetings, that Ignatius doesn’t think Rome is just another place where the Church is.

Myhrr:

It was also the capital city of the vast Roman empire and they were taking him there to kill him for his faith.

Pagan Rome has nothing to do with the Church what-so-ever. 200 years after this point, the Church will be responsible for bringing down the Roman empire.

 

[Myhrr]

Hello Bob, oh please don’t throw linguistic arguments back at me, I’ll duck!

bob:

So much for Greek grammar (sounds like Reverse Polish notation). Does this verse below mean Jesus is telling Peter that Jesus himself is feeding his lambs and sheep?

John 21:15-18
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?”
“Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.”
Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?”
He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.”
Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.”
The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?”
Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

Based on your Greek grammar, Jesus is feeding his own lambs and sheep and Peter is declaring that he loves himself?

Hmm, I don’t understand your argument one little bit… The only verse with a demonstrative pronoun is the first, from what I recall of the Valentine page it said that its use referred back to that nearest the subject, so the only verse that could apply is 15, in which case what was Jesus referring to? They’d just finished eating, maybe he was talking about the food spread out on the table and not referring to the other disciples at all.

Who has been given authority to forgive sins here?

John 20:21-23
Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”

Is Jesus giving himself the authority or passing it to Peter and the disciples?

You lot are really hung up on authority aren’t you? The keys mean only one thing to you, the power to imprison or set free purely in the context of having power over others. Even if it means ignoring the rest of Christ’s teachings.

Note how it begins. Peace be with you*.* Did Christ instil fear in others? Did he tell them he judged them sinners and therefore he condemned them? Quite the opposite, he came not to judge but to forgive. And he taught us his way.

But I say to you, love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you and pray for them that spitefully use and persecute you. That you may be sons of your Father in heaven.

He gave them, not just Peter, the power through the Holy Spirit to forgive sins or to condemn. A great power was conferred on them, how do you think He wanted them to use it? Sounds to me like he was giving them a reminder of his teachings on this, such as forgive and forgive and forgive, and God is always merciful so if a sinner asks God for forgiveness he is always forgiven. And if that gets you all upset thinking that means someone will go unpunished for his sins then you’re missing the message of Christ.

A great power, a reminder to use it wisely.

How much clearer can we get with the above two verses?

Very clear, Jesus as usual called Peter, Simon son of Jonah, he never called him Peter. Peter was used by the others when referring to Simon bar Jonah.

Tell me, how would you feel if you had such a power and used it to condemn another to everlasting hell?

 

[Myhrr]

Fiat:

Myrrh stated the following:

It’s tortured logic to assume that just because a metaphor is used in one place in scripture then the interpretation of that metaphor must be used exclusively in absolutely every other reference in scripture. If you assume that because scripture identifies Christ as “THE ROCK” in one instance then he must be THE ROCK in every other instance, then how do you deal with metaphors that describe Abraham as the rock in Isaiah 51:1-2, or God as the rock in 1 Sam 2:2, Psalms 18:31, Isa 44:8?

Just because Jesus is our one true rock doesn’t mean that Peter isn’t our rock in a lesser way. After all, there are shepherds with the one true shepherd (John 10:16; 21:15-17, Acts 20:28, Heb. 13:20); Bishops with the one Bishop, Pastors with the One Pastor of our Souls (1 Pet 2:25; 5:2-4; 1 Tim 3:15; Titus 1:7; Eph 4:11).

In Matt 24:45, Jesus asks, “Who, then, is the faithful and prudent servant, whom the master has put in charge of his household to distribute to them their food at the proper time?” Here we have Christ suggesting that a single man-servant would be in charge of His house. In John 21:15-19 we have Christ charging Peter with the responsibility of “feeding his sheep.”

I think you’re on your way to being a beautiful Catholic Christian. I’m praying for you, buddy!

I’m already a Catholic Christian, your prayers must have worked in some sort of quantum leap! As Ignatius said, Where Christ is there is the Catholic Church.

http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?search=I+am+with+you+always&SearchType=AND&version=NIV&restrict=Gospels&StartRestrict=&EndRestrict=&rpp=25&language=english&searchpage=0&x=17&y=8

No non-RCC arguing against your Rock = Peter has ever suggested, to my knowledge, that Peter isn’t a rock in a lesser meaning than Christ, God or even Abraham who is the father of nations etc. but, what I find is that concentration on this word play is often used as a distraction from the very real problem that Peter as The rock doesn’t actually equate to Rome’s claim to being his sole successor.

There’s the very real history that both Paul and Peter ordained bishops for Rome and your Church has chosen to ignore Paul completely, but the early fathers like Ignatius and Irenaeus and others all think of Rome as being taught by both. There’s no confusion from them, they knew that Antioch was and still is the See of Peter, and, Peter ordained others besides those in Antioch and Rome, so Peter is shared by all the Church through the company of the Apostles.

The tortuous reasoning is really all on your side, the very first canon of the Church is Christ’s ‘you shall not be as the Gentile lords’. Give it up.

The Church understands this Peter = rock as primarily the revelation, the confession and the steadfastness of Peter through all his trials and confusion. A role model. Yes he did have leadership qualities, but James was the first among equals, and the Mother Church is still Jerusalem which title was acknowledged by some Ecumenical Council or other.

It wasn’t until some 300 years after Christ that Rome was given any jurisdictional status, at the council of Nicaea. It was *given to Rome *by the fathers, so that it could be organised as the other Patriarchates already were. Where do you get universal jurisdiction from?

Every single claim you make on this is historically inaccurate, but Rome doesn’t actually care about that. As long as its got the vast number of its members and the world generally believing its claims what do our tiny arguments matter? We’re no more an irritation than a single gnat. And, like all irritations, as they come up Rome will find solutions to salve it. Athenagoras and Paul VI was quite ingenious, doesn’t make it honest though.

And Peter’s still feeding Christ’s sheep, in the Church he is among the living cloud of witness in communion with us all. You do not own him.

 

[Myhrr]

Tim Hayes:

Myrhh, and every Protestant type person,

in this whole Peter and Rock thing, it can be all put in context by the simple fact that Jesus changed Simons name to Rock (Peter) and then continued to call him so afterwards.

Why do you think Christ decided to start calling him ROCK.

Tim,

Andrew the First Called brought Simon to Christ and this is when Christ first told him that he would be called Peter, rock. It’s late and I’m not going to look it up, but I’m remembering it as a future ‘would be’. So, I think Christ was giving him a mnemonic which he would associate with, if and when, Peter recognised him.

Christ didn’t call him that, even after the revelation, he always called him Simon barJonah, but, if Christ had said that to you I’m sure you’d have wondered about it and what it meant.

So when Christ then said in 16:18 ‘and I tell you that you are’ He was making the association stick, the rock of revelation from the Father associated forever with his new ‘surname’.