Peter the "rock"?

[Howie01]

paul c:

What makes you think you can interpret scripture better than the millions of Catholic theologians, who also benefit from Tradition?

You haven’t answered my question.

paul:

When Jesus says to Peter in Mt 16:19: I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." that defines his primacy. He has the keys to the kingdom of heaven. That is not given to the rest of the Apostles in Mt 18:18.

Simply saying it defines his primacy doesn’t make it so. That position of Rome has been a bone of contention for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.
paul c:

What are the good reasons that Peter was not the rock.?

I stated that, Paul—Peter’s confession, and the apostle’s declaration the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles [plural] and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”
paul c:

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom

There’s no indication of a perpetual use of the keys by Peter, or by his “successors.”
paul c:

and told in John 21 to tend the flocks. What more do you want Jesus to say to him?

I stated “what more I want” in my last post: if the Lord meant all the things He said [about Peter as head of the church] in the way Rome claims he meant them, for Jesus just to have stated the RCC position as the RCC states it, which Jesus doesn’t do.
paul c:

The teaching point for Matt 18: 1-4 is that the humble will inherit the earth. This is a reiteration of the beatitude. In John 13, he makes the further point that the leaders will in fact be the servants of all.

Once again, up to the night of the Lord’s supper the apostles were bickering over who would be the greatest.

Apparently none of them, including Peter, got the RCC understanding of Mt 16:18.
paul c:

Peter didn’t need to say he was the leader, he just acted in that role.

Well those who later determined to create the office of Pope, an office Christ didn’t create, sure needed to assert that they were leaders. Face it my friend, the Scriptures do not favor your position.
paul c:

For instance, when they all recieved the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, it was Peter who spoke for the Group. And in Acts 1, it was Peter who defined the need to replace Judas with Matthias.

Wow.
paul c:

As to Peter’s suitability to exercise the office of Pope, He was chosen by God.

The church created the office of Pope; don’t hang that on Jesus. :tsktsk:

(Jesus said it was God who revealed to Peter that Jesus was the Messiah)

I got news for you, Paul, God reveals that to each believer.
paul c:

and he had the support of the Holy Spirit to make sure he got things right.

And each believer receives the indwelling Spirit.

So, for me, neither of those arguments advance your cause.
paul c:

Give me a break. Jesus told Peter to tend his flock. What can be more straightforward than that?

You miss another point I’ve point made. The point is, feeding the flock is pastoral care.
paul c:

Paul tells the Galatians that he rebuked Peter for acting differently with the Gentiles than he did with the Jews. However, in Acts we learn that Paul circumcised Timothy and we also learn in Acts 21:24 that Paul shaved his head in atonement so that he could enter the temple. In essence, Paul did the same things that he rebuked Peter for doing. He learned what Peter already Knew: To act in ways with the people he was converting so as not to detract from the Gospel message.

That is, IMO, a very lame apologetic, Paul, and one I’ve heard before.

Earlier you said, "he [Peter] had the support of the Holy Spirit to make sure he got things right."

The same Holy Spirit directed Paul to rebuke Peter, and Peter remains silent on the whole issue.

The Spirit does not rebuke Paul, by anyone, for the things you cite: circumcising Timothy, and Paul shaving his own head.

Moreover, there’s no rebuke of Paul by the Spirit for Paul having rebuked Peter.
paul c:

You say that Peter is not the leader of the Church.

Yes.
paul c:

That is denying the Role of Peter in the Church.

No it’s not. It’s denying that Peter was the leader of the Church.

The error in your thinking is rooted in your presumption of the correctness of the RCC position that Peter is the leader of the Church.

Once again, I’m not denying Peter’s role in the church, but Rome’s embellishment of his role, an embellishment that is responsible for great division.

 

[paul_c]

You haven’t answered my question.

If these are the questions your mean:

It depends on the difficulty of the passage; does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

And how about your Church?

Yes, I absolutely make mistakes and sometimes have been shown to be wrong. However, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is never wrong on issues of Faith or Morals and when I am aligned with the Church, I can be sure of my position.

Simply saying it defines his primacy doesn’t make it so. That position of Rome has been a bone of contention for a long, long, long, long, long, long time.

The reading is very clear that Peter was given the keys and the Early Church fathers understood that Peter has primacy.  That has already been shown on this thread by others.  And you are right that there has been contention for the last 500 years.  That contention was driven by people who wanted a different Gospel than the one given by the Spirit to the Apostles.  We all have free will and we are all responsible for what we do with it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by paul c
What are the good reasons that Peter was not the rock.?

I stated that, Paul—Peter’s confession, and the apostle’s declaration the church is “built on the foundation of the apostles [plural] and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone.”

Peter’s confession was the REASON he was chosen to be the Rock. Where does it say that all the apostles and the prophets are the rock? Of Course Jesus is the corner stone, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that he Called Peter to be the rock on which his church would be built.

There’s no indication of a perpetual use of the keys by Peter, or by his “successors.”

I stated “what more I want” in my last post: if the Lord meant all the things He said [about Peter as head of the church] in the way Rome claims he meant them, for Jesus just to have stated the RCC position as the RCC states it, which Jesus doesn’t do.

Peter is the leader of the Church on earth, having been designated as such by Jesus. What more is Peter other than the leader.

Once again, up to the night of the Lord’s supper the apostles were bickering over who would be the greatest.

Apparently none of them, including Peter, got the RCC understanding of Mt 16:18.

Well those who later determined to create the office of Pope, an office Christ didn’t create, sure needed to assert that they were leaders. Face it my friend, the Scriptures do not favor your position.

I don’t disagree that they were arguing abou twho was the greatest , but they were rebuked by Jesus for doing so…

You miss another point I’ve point made. The point is, feeding the flock is pastoral care.

Which is what Peter’s role is in the church. The leader must serve the rest.

Once again, I’m not denying Peter’s role in the church, but Rome’s embellishment of his role, an embellishment that is responsible for great division.

His role in the church is as leader of the Church. If you deny that, they you are denying his role.

 

[Howie01]

.

**There are only two things in your post that we’ve haven’t previously addressed:

**
paul c:

Yes, I absolutely make mistakes and sometimes have been shown to be wrong. However, the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and is never wrong on issues of Faith or Morals and when I am aligned with the Church, I can be sure of my position.

You admit that you absolutely make mistakes….

The logical extension of that admission is, you are fallible, and your falliblity might have led you to believe, wrongly, that the RCC teaching regarding her infallibility is true.
paul c:

The reading is very clear that Peter was given the keys and the Early Church fathers understood that Peter has primacy.

Catholics do appeal to the fathers in support of their argument for the primacy of Peter. Protestants reject the use of that as an authoritative argument, since they believe that the Bible, not the fathers, is the only authoritative source for faith and practice.

The fathers held many contrary views on Christian Doctrine and practice and, hence, they cannot all be right. So, any alleged divine authority there may be in one father’s writings is canceled by the fact that the same authority would exist in an opposing father’s view.

In short, the father’s alleged authority is self-canceling, and therefore, non-existent.

 

[paul_c]

.

**There are only two things in your post that we’ve haven’t previously addressed:

**You admit that you absolutely make mistakes….

The logical extension of that admission is, you are fallible, and your falliblity might have led you to believe, wrongly, that the RCC teaching regarding her infallibility is true.

So, Howie, Do YOU make mistakes? You see, if you make a mistake, there is no one to correct you. If I make a mistake, I can look it up in the Catechism and get back on track…

.
Catholics do appeal to the fathers in support of their argument for the primacy of Peter. Protestants reject the use of that as an authoritative argument, since they believe that the Bible, not the fathers, is the only authoritative source for faith and practice.

. So why do Protestants believe what the Apostles wrote down in scripture but not what they passed down verbally? And why don’t they use blessed tradition to interpret the scripture, instead relying on their own interpretation? The reason the Catholics reference the Church fathers is that it demonstrated continuity of doctrine…

.
The fathers held many contrary views on Christian Doctrine and practice and, hence, they cannot all be right. So, any alleged divine authority there may be in one father’s writings is canceled by the fact that the same authority would exist in an opposing father’s view.

In short, the father’s alleged authority is self-canceling, and therefore, non-existent.

its not about authority, but about continuity of Doctrine.So, can you demonstrate what you say about the Fathers offering contrary views on Christian Doctrine. And recognize that this doesn’t count Early writers were declared heretics in their own time, because just like now there were people who tried to modify what the church teaches.

 

[Howie01]

paul c:

So, Howie, Do YOU make mistakes? You see, if you make a mistake, there is no one to correct you. If I make a mistake, I can look it up in the Catechism and get back on track.

ISTM you again haven’t understood my point.

Firing that point again for effect, with specific modification, viz, the Catechsim of the Catholic Church:

You admit that you absolutely make mistakes….

The logical extension of that admission is, you are fallible, and your fallibility might have led you to believe, wrongly, that the RCC teaching in the Catechism is infallibly true.

paul c:

So why do Protestants believe what the Apostles wrote down in scripture but not what they passed down verbally?

Rather than giving you an answer you’ll certainly argue with, it’s better to demonstrate what is in, IMO, the absurdity of what you ask.

List everything the apostles passed down verbally and unwritten, and document which apostle didn’t write which unwritten tradition.

That endeavor should give you some idea of the answer you seek.
paul c:

its not about authority…

Especially since I’ve demonstrated that the father’s authority is self-canceling and non-existent.…
paul c:

but about continuity of Doctrine.So, can you demonstrate what you say about the Fathers offering contrary views on Christian Doctrine. And recognize that this doesn’t count Early writers were declared heretics in their own time, because just like now there were people who tried to modify what the church teaches.

Ludwig Ott admits some of the fathers took “the rock on which the Lord built the church as meaning the faith of Peter in the Divinity of Christ,” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: Tan, 1960, 280.)

 

[promethius]

I wasn’t making a big deal out of what you said, but only clarifying it, but seeing as how you are making a big deal out of it, sure you did. I’ll post what you said, and you can see that what you’re saying now conflicts with what you said then:In fact, the cornerstone is that upon which the building is built, and if it’s off at all, the whole building is off, and as you say, if you remove it, the building could collapse; therefore, once again, the building is built upon the cornerstone, and in the case of the church Christ is not only the cornerstone, but the foundation as well (Lk 20:17; 1 Cor 3:11).

Not correct. The building is built upon the FOUNDATION, with the integral part of the building being the cornerstone. Perhaps you aren’t exactly familiar with roman and other ancient archeology. Allow this to enlighten:
mmdtkw.org/ALRIVes0603NolaBronze1700BC.jpg

This is an excavation of a roman foundation. Note it is a broad, flat area that holds up the ENTIRE structure. A cornerstone, on the other hand, in ancient times is placed at a single corner of the structure, ON the foundation.

Perhaps this will clarify further: in the region of Juruselem, and at that time, masonry foundations were not yet used. Rather a cornerstone was placed on TOP of the carved bedrock foundation. again, two seperate items.

I’m an ICC certified Residential and Commercial Building and Construction Inspector; ‘nuff said.

That’s great. But we’re not talking about modern concrete foundations, or even masonry foundations (if that were the case, you would be correct that the cornerstone is part of the foundation, though incorrect in that there is much more to a masonry foundation than simply the cornerstone). We’re talking about ANCIENT archeology. Foundations of a single piece of bedrock carved from the ground. Sure you can recognize the vast difference between a bedrock foundation and a modern concrete foundation.

Christ is both the Cornerstone, and the Foundation upon which the Church is built (Lk 20:17; Eph 2:19ff; 1 Cor 3:11).

Luke 20:17 says Christ is the cornerstone. It doesn’t say anything about the foundation.

Ephesians 2:19: 19So then you are no longer(A) strangers and aliens,a] but you are(**(“http://bibleresources.bible.com/pas...ge1=Ephesians+2:19&version1=47#cen-ESV-29232B”)) fellow citizens with the saints and(C) members of the household of God,

Nothing at all about foundations

1 Cor 3:11 DOES mention Christ as the foundation. Unfortunately if you actually read scripture in CONTEXT rather than just doing word searches and then hacksawing verses from their meaning, you would know that Paul is not referencing construction of the church, but rather the basis of doctrine and dogma. Specifically he’s referencing the doctrine shared in the letter of Corinthians as the foundation he laid for HIS teaching of the corinthians. That is to say, Paul’s statement is that Christ is the basis upon which he builds his doctrinal teaching. Verse 10 makes this clear… You really should read these things in context.

If Christ is building His church upon Peter as the Rock, then it’s the confession of faith that Peter made, and that God revealed to him:You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God"—that is the proclamation of the Church—the church does not proclaim "Peter," at least, Christ’s true church doesn’t proclaim Peter.

Funny, that’s not what the scripture says. The scripture says, clearly, “Simon, you are Peter (petros, stone) and on this rock I will build my church.”

It does not imply that Simon’s FAITH is rock at all. In fact, Mark as a whole underlines how shaken the faith of ALL the disciples could become and the weakness of their faith. That is the point: God has built an office of apostolic tradition which is protected by the Grace of the Holy Spirit from being as faulty as the apostles’ faith could be.

 

[Howie01]

promethius:

Not correct. The building is built upon the FOUNDATION, with the integral part of the building being the cornerstone.

We’re talking passed one another. The cornerstone is the reference point upon which the building is constructed.

Does that help?

promethius:

That’s great. But we’re not talking about modern concrete foundations, or even masonry foundations

We’re not talking modern construction, but modern buildings have exact geographic location, specific longitude and latitude, all things begin from that point—they are built upon the point.

My statement:Christ is both the Cornerstone, and the Foundation upon which the Church is built (Lk 20:17; Eph 2:19ff; 1 Cor 3:11).

To which promethius replied:

Luke 20:17 says Christ is the cornerstone. It doesn’t say anything about the foundation.

Ephesians 2:19: 19So then you are no longer(A) strangers and aliens,[a] but you are(B) fellow citizens with the saints and(C) members of the household of God,

1 Cor 3:11 DOES mention Christ as the foundation. Unfortunately if you actually read scripture in CONTEXT rather than just doing word searches and then hacksawing verses from their meaning, you would know that Paul is not referencing construction of the church, but rather the basis of doctrine and dogma. Specifically he’s referencing the doctrine shared in the letter of Corinthians as the foundation he laid for HIS teaching of the corinthians. That is to say, Paul’s statement is that Christ is the basis upon which he builds his doctrinal teaching. Verse 10 makes this clear… You really should read these things in context.

Forgive me, promethius, I assumed that you read theological books in which authors list points, and then list the citations to which they refer in order.

When a citation is followed by “ff,” the citation indicates the beginning verse, the “ff” indicates to continue reading the following verses.

Eph 2:19ff indicates to begin reading at verse 19, and continue reading subsequent verses, and within those verses you will find the point supported.

Hope that helps.

With respect to your assessment of 1 Cor 3, we agree. What’s amazing, is that you are so argumentative, you can’t allow yourself to see that.

promethius:

Funny, that’s not what the scripture says. The scripture says, clearly, “Simon, you are Peter (petros, stone) and on this rock I will build my church.”

It does not imply that Simon’s FAITH is rock at all. In fact, Mark as a whole underlines how shaken the faith of ALL the disciples could become and the weakness of their faith. That is the point: God has built an office of apostolic tradition which is protected by the Grace of the Holy Spirit from being as faulty as the apostles’ faith could be.

I’m not going to bother re-posting my post to which your post responds.

I’ll simply say that my church, the true church, proclaims Peter’s confession to the world, "Christ is the Son of the Living God.

The proclamation of your church to the world, according to you is, “Simon, you are Peter (petros, stone) and on this rock I will build my church.”



.

 

[paul_c]

Originally Posted by paul c
So, Howie, Do YOU make mistakes? You see, if you make a mistake, there is no one to correct you. If I make a mistake, I can look it up in the Catechism and get back on track.

ISTM you again haven’t understood my point.

Firing that point again for effect, with specific modification, viz, the Catechsim of the Catholic Church:
Quote:
You admit that you absolutely make mistakes….

The logical extension of that admission is, you are fallible, and your fallibility might have led you to believe, wrongly, that the RCC teaching in the Catechism is infallibly true.

Howie, This is very weak logic on your part. All humans are fallible, even you. I hope you recognize that. So could I be mistaken about the fact that the RCC teaching is infallibly true.
Perhaps. But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong. That is what the entire debate is about, isn’t it. And in the end the Catholic Church has two things which are not available to others. First of all, it has the entire deposit of Faith passed down from the Apostles, including how to interpret Sacred Scripture. That gives us a distinct advantage in understanding the will of God. The second is that we have access to God’s graces through the sacraments administered by the Apostolic successors. This is absolutely key to salvation. In fact, without a valid baptism (or at least the desire to be baptized), you can not be saved. This has been shown by other posters in this thread. I know that as a Protestant, you can not accept this, but you as a person could, and then be brought back into Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. That choice is up to you and you can not claim ignorance, because you have been warned.

Originally Posted by paul c
So why do Protestants believe what the Apostles wrote down in scripture but not what they passed down verbally?

Rather than giving you an answer you’ll certainly argue with, it’s better to demonstrate what is in, IMO, the absurdity of what you ask.

List everything the apostles passed down verbally and unwritten, and document which apostle didn’t write which unwritten tradition.

That endeavor should give you some idea of the answer you seek.

It does indeed. You see, we Catholics have a much different reference point for our view of scripture than you do and that comes from Tradition. For instance, when we read Matther 16: 18-19:
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. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven
We see it as the apostles did: as Peter being named the leader of the church. You, on the other hand, hampered by your Protests against the Catholic Church, can not read it that way and are forced to explain it with alternative interpretations.
While we are at it, let’s discuss the Luke 22 argument about which desciple was the greatest. You say that Jesus didn’t say it was Peter but in fact, he did. here is the passage: Luke 22: 24-32:
Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must trengthen your brothers.”
You read this passage and came away with the feeling that all of the Apostles were equal, but with our Catholic Tradition as background, we can see that in Fact, Jesus identifies Simon (Peter) as the one who must strengthen his brothers.

Originally Posted by paul c
its not about authority…

Especially since I’ve demonstrated that the father’s authority is self-canceling and non-existent.…

Saying that there are church fathers with conflicting views but offering no examples to support your point isn’t really adequate to make this statement, now is it?

Originally Posted by paul c
but about continuity of Doctrine.So, can you demonstrate what you say about the Fathers offering contrary views on Christian Doctrine. And recognize that this doesn’t count Early writers were declared heretics in their own time, because just like now there were people who tried to modify what the church teaches.

Ludwig Ott admits some of the fathers took “the rock on which the Lord built the church as meaning the faith of Peter in the Divinity of Christ,” (Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Rockford, IL: Tan, 1960, 280.)

I can’t do very much with this statement. Who is Ludwig Ott and which Church father’s is he talking about, and what exactly did he say?

 

[sixofseven]

I get that Catholics and Protestants can agree that Peter is the rock - what the real argument is the succession of Peter - the papacy.

Why is it so hard to accept it?

Am I right in saying the Protestant view is that they answer only to Jesus and only turn to Scripture to clarify issues of faith?

Jesus refers constantly to his Church - what do you think the ‘Church’ is?

The US currency states ‘In God We Trust’ yet you still have the Presidency - why?

Why is it so hard to accept that a leader is appointed to make sure we don’t go off-track?

There’s so much talk about the youth of today, they are so unruly, selfish, they need discipline, guidelines, a good smack to teach them a lesson etc etc. And who do most people blame? The parents - for not keeping them in line. Can’t you see that this is the role of the papacy and the priesthood - to keep God’s children in line, to assert to them by what Jesus taught what is right and wrong - and WHY it is right and wrong. Is it so hard to believe that Jesus, saying he would be with us always, would not help the leaders of his Church?

Aren’t Protestants tired of fighting against authority all the time? Submit - we are the Church, Christ’s bride.

 

[De_Maria]

Jesus talking to Peter directly: “you are the rock and upon this rock I will build MY church”

Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. The ACTUAL words in scripture ARE:

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

(You guys always forget about verse 17.) This passage can literally only mean 4 things:

1. Christ is building His church on Peters faith
2. Christ is building His church on Peter
3. Christ is building His church on Himself
4. Christ is building His church on an actual rock

I think we both can agree 4 is not an option.
Since Christ tells us - all fall short of the glory of God in Romans 3:23 - it would make no sense for Christ to build His church on Peter - point 2.

One would then reasonable deduct that it is point 1 or 3.

Point 3 is makes direct reference to Ephesians 2: 19-20
19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone

So here, the bible is literally telling us what the “rock” is…

I was sent this as a email from someone trying very hard to talk me out of believing all things Catholic.

On the contrary, it is because Jesus is the Rock that #2 makes the most sense. Jesus is saying that Simon represents Him.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

But let us proceed to prove that Peter represents God.

Is Moses God? Of course not. But what did God say?

Exodus 7 1 And the Lord said to Moses: Behold I have appointed thee the God of Pharao: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

Why did God call Moses God? Because He appointed Moses as His representative before Pharoa and the people:

Exodus 19 9 The Lord said to him: Lo, now will I come to thee in the darkness of a cloud, that the people may hear me speaking to thee, and may believe thee for ever. And Moses told the words of the people to the Lord.

And what did God do in the New Testament? God also selected a man to represent Him. Simon Bar-Jonah.

Matthew 16 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Who is the Rock?

1 Corinthians 10 4 And all drank the same spiritual drink; (and they drank of the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ.

Christ is the Rock!

And the Rock turned to Simon and said, “YOU ARE ROCK and on this Rock I will build my Church”

So God gave Simon the name that represents God.

2 Kings 22 2 And he said: The Lord is my rock, and my strength, and my saviour.

Why? Because Simon now represents God before men.

Therefore Jesus also gave Him the keys to the Kingdom:

Matthew 16 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Thereby giving Simon the authority to save. He can open and close the door to heaven, therefore, he can save.

And so, the Pope, the successor of Peter, is the representative of God before His People.

Do you agree?

 

[Luke65]

Aren’t Protestants tired of fighting against authority all the time? Submit - we are the Church, Christ’s bride.

Good point, especially for those who say the Bible is their only authority:

“Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account.” (Hebrews 13:17)

 

[Howie01]

paul c:

Howie, This is very weak logic on your part…

My logic is impeccable, Paul, and you will prove it in your next statement following the ellipsis in your statement above.
paul c:

All humans are fallible, even you. I hope you recognize that.

Thank you, Paul. I’ve always known that, but I don’t think you have, that’s why I kept driving at the point—so you would recognize that your “personal interpertation” (although through the church by proxy) is fallible.
paul c:

So could I be mistaken about the fact that the RCC teaching is infallibly true.

Perhaps. But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.

So, you’re playing the odds.

I prefer to know what I believe, and why I believe it, and rest not on my own understanding, but in all things, trust the Lord, and His promises (Ps 3:5), which promises that word is sufficient to adequately equip me for every good work (2 Tim 3:17); Ps 19:7ff; Ps 119:98-100).
paul c:

And in the end the Catholic Church has two things which are not available to others. First of all, it has the entire deposit of Faith passed down from the Apostles, including how to interpret Sacred Scripture. That gives us a distinct advantage in understanding the will of God. The second is that we have access to God’s graces through the sacraments administered by the Apostolic successors. This is absolutely key to salvation. In fact, without a valid baptism (or at least the desire to be baptized), you can not be saved. This has been shown by other posters in this thread. I know that as a Protestant, you can not accept this, but you as a person could, and then be brought back into Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. That choice is up to you and you can not claim ignorance, because you have been warned.

And you’ve determined this in your fallibility.
paul c:

It does indeed. You see, we Catholics have a much different reference point for our view of scripture than you do and that comes from Tradition.

You’re unable to fulfill my request.
paul c:

We see it as the apostles did: as Peter being named the leader of the church. You, on the other hand, hampered by your Protests against the Catholic Church, can not read it that way and are forced to explain it with alternative interpretations.

Now there’s a weak argument based solely on the longevity of the CC, an argument which requires you to work backward, engaging in anachronism.
paul c:

You read this passage and came away with the feeling that all of the Apostles were equal…

I don’t have a feeling about the passage, Paul, but an understanding of it.

I understand that the apostles didn’t understand that Jesus had made Peter the leader of the church.
paul c:

Saying that there are church fathers with conflicting views but offering no examples to support your point isn’t really adequate to make this statement, now is it?

It’s a general statement, Paul.

There any number of statements by the fathers on the Mt 16 passage, stating, as I have, that while Peter is the rock, it’s his confession, which is also the confession of every believer, upon which the Church is built.

Here’s two: that should be available from Schaff on the web: Athanasius, (Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953)], Letters of Athanasius, Letter 29, p. 551). Augustine (Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956], Vol. Vi, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341.
paul c:

Who is Ludwig Ott

A Catholic theologian. His quote is general as well, in fact, on review, it’s contextually stated more with respect to the battle against Arianism, so I’ll drop it.

 

[jcrichton]

…does it ever occur to you that you might be wrong?

And how about your Church?

…responding to Peter’s confession… making Peter a rock in the foundation of the church does not thereby endow him with all of the magisterial authority Rome loads in the term “primacy.” Jesus gave the same binding and loosing power to all the apostles (mt 18:18).

…Peter was not the rock; Peter’s confession was the occasion for Jesus’ statement, and Peter’s confession is the foundational confession of the Church (Mt 16:16; Jn 20:31; 1 Jn 5:13).

Besides, if the Lord meant all the things He said in the way Rome claims he meant them, why didn’t Jesus just come out and say those things the RCC way??

Could it possibly be, he didn’t mean what Rome claims he meant?

Who found out that He meant it? The apostles didn’t find out at that time. Up to the night of the Supper they continued to dispute who should be the greatest. Why didn’t the Lord answer them that Peter was the greatest on the earth and in the kingdom when they asked Him later (Mt 18:1-4)?

Furthermore, Peter never referred to himself as the supreme authority, but as a fellow "presbuteros," an elder (1 Pet 1:5).

D.A. Carson… But he could not fulfill this task if, in exercise of his supreme teaching office, he himself were subject to error."

It’s pastoral care that’s in view.

Leon Morris… the closing of it: *"…Jesus was restoring Peter to a place of *[pastoral] trust."

…Jesus’ restoration of Simon to properly administer pastoral care to the flock… such as Timothy, had in the NT.
Jesus did not Command Peter to tend to the flock; He Commanded him to care for His disciples–to gather them around him and strengthen them.

…clear and concise “everything you wanted to know about Yahweh God but were too stupid to ask?”

Ever heard of the other Paraclete, the Spirit of Truth? But you would say why on Jesus’ terms?:

**19 Then you will ask me, ‘How then can he ever blame anyone, since no one can oppose his will?’ 20 But you – who do you think you, a human being, are, to answer back to God? Something that was made, can it say to its maker: why did you make me this shape? ** (Romans 9:19-20)

Moreover, Peter did not demonstrate an exemplar primacy in faith and practice, even in NT times where the apostle Paul rebuked Peter for his practice that was contrary to the Gospel (Gal 2:11-12). Paul called what Peter did hypocrisy and a denial of the straightforward truth of the Gospel. Peter’s denial was a de facto denial of the Gospel.

That’s seriously inconsistent with Rome’s claim that Peter is the primary teacher of faith and practice in the church.

I’ve nowhere Denied the Role of Peter in the Church; but just Rome’s embellishment of it.

…so how exactly does the Pope exalts himself above the other Bishops? You, and those you esteem as learned, continue to ignore Scripture even when Christ Himself proclaims it!

How many of the Eleven did Christ rename Kephas? You still don’t see it?:

As he was walking by the Lake of Galilee he saw two brothers, Simon, who was called Peter, and his brother Andrew; they were making a cast into the lake with their net, for they were fishermen. (St. Matthew 4:18)

…noticed how Kephas is placed first? Noticed how only Simon get special notation?

These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon who is known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; (St. Matthew 10:2)

…did St. Matthew get it wrong? (Compare with St. John 1:40-42) St. Matthew purposefully places Kephas as the first disciple!

It was very early on the first day of the week and still dark, when Mary of Magdala came to the tomb. She saw that the stone had been moved away from the tomb 2 and came running to Simon Peter and the other disciple, the one whom Jesus loved. ‘They have taken the Lord out of the tomb,’ she said, ‘and we don’t know where they have put him.’ 3 So Peter set out with the other disciple to go to the tomb. 4 They ran together, but the other disciple, running faster than Peter, reached the tomb first; 5 he bent down and saw the linen cloths lying on the ground, but did not go in. 6 Simon Peter, following him, also came up, went into the tomb, saw the linen cloths lying on the ground 7 and also the cloth that had been over his head; this was not with the linen cloths but rolled up in a place by itself. 8 Then the other disciple who had reached the tomb first also went in; he saw and he believed. (St. John 20:1-8)

…here we have St. John’s own testimony that while he was able to reach the tomb before Kephas, he did not enter till Kephas had gone in–he acquiesced the position of first to Kephas.

40 One of these two who became followers of Jesus after hearing what John had said was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother and say to him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ – which means the Christ- 42 and he took Simon to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John; you are to be called Cephas’ – which means Rock. (St. John 1:40-42)

…break down of the story: Andrew meets Jesus, hangs with Him for a while… Simon is brought to Jesus–Jesus separates Simon from among the rest!

Interstingly enough, it is Simon who professes the greatest Faith, it is Simon who always jumps to Jesus’ side; Scriptures records Jesus staying only at Simon’s house; Jesus extends His fiscal and Spiritual pretection specially to Simon! …and in spite of knowing that he will deny Him three times, Jesus changes Simon’s name to Kephas–was Jesus’ judgment impared or was He looking above and beyond?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I get that Catholics and Protestants can agree that Peter is the rock - what the real argument is the succession of Peter - the papacy.

Why is it so hard to accept it?

Am I right in saying the Protestant view is that they answer only to Jesus and only turn to Scripture to clarify issues of faith?

Jesus refers constantly to his Church - what do you think the ‘Church’ is?

The US currency states ‘In God We Trust’ yet you still have the Presidency - why?

Why is it so hard to accept that a leader is appointed to make sure we don’t go off-track?

There’s so much talk about the youth of today, they are so unruly, selfish, they need discipline, guidelines, a good smack to teach them a lesson etc etc. And who do most people blame? The parents - for not keeping them in line. Can’t you see that this is the role of the papacy and the priesthood - to keep God’s children in line, to assert to them by what Jesus taught what is right and wrong - and WHY it is right and wrong. Is it so hard to believe that Jesus, saying he would be with us always, would not help the leaders of his Church?

Aren’t Protestants tired of fighting against authority all the time? Submit - we are the Church, Christ’s bride.

That is precisely the reason, they refuse to submit to Christ!

They rather hold on to the fallacies passed down by Luther and his minions (who left him at a drop of a dime to create their own reformations) and reject Christ’s own Word, twisting and ignoring and omitting every passage that does not readily support their error.

If they were to acknowledge the Succession of the Apostles, they would have to rejoin the Body of Christ: One Faith, One Baptism, One Gospel, One Church (One Bride and One Bride’s Groom).

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[paul_c]

Howie, you act like this is some kind of debate, where you can score points instead of an opportunity to find the truth. That is to you detriment.

Originally Posted by paul c
Howie, This is very weak logic on your part

…

My logic is impeccable, Paul, and you will prove it in your next statement following the ellipsis in your statement above.

Originally Posted by paul c
All humans are fallible, even you. I hope you recognize that.

Thank you, Paul. I’ve always known that, but I don’t think you have, that’s why I kept driving at the point—so you would recognize that your “personal interpertation” (although through the church by proxy) is fallible.

Originally Posted by paul c
So could I be mistaken about the fact that the RCC teaching is infallibly true.

Perhaps. But both Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.

So, you’re playing the odds.

I prefer to know what I believe, and why I believe it, and rest not on my own understanding, but in all things, trust the Lord, and His promises (Ps 3:5), which promises that word is sufficient to adequately equip me for every good work (2 Tim 3:17); Ps 19:7ff; Ps 119:98-100).

In the discussion above, you try to render my theology as unsupportable, because I am personally fallible. You are indicting yourself by this logic, because after all, you have no basis for your interpretations other than your own opinions, which you also admit are fallble. This does not apply to me, however, because my theology is not personal. It is the theology passed down by the Apostles through the Catholic Church, which is infact, infallable, protected by the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by paul c
And in the end the Catholic Church has two things which are not available to others. First of all, it has the entire deposit of Faith passed down from the Apostles, including how to interpret Sacred Scripture. That gives us a distinct advantage in understanding the will of God. The second is that we have access to God’s graces through the sacraments administered by the Apostolic successors. This is absolutely key to salvation. In fact, without a valid baptism (or at least the desire to be baptized), you can not be saved. This has been shown by other posters in this thread. I know that as a Protestant, you can not accept this, but you as a person could, and then be brought back into Christ’s one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church. That choice is up to you and you can not claim ignorance, because you have been warned.

And you’ve determined this in your fallibility.

No, this is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Originally Posted by paul c
It does indeed. You see, we Catholics have a much different reference point for our view of scripture than you do and that comes from Tradition.

You’re unable to fulfill my request.

no, I fulfilled your request perfectly. I showed you how our tradition works. Just because I didn’t answer as you expected, doesn’t make it incorrect.

Originally Posted by paul c
We see it as the apostles did: as Peter being named the leader of the church. You, on the other hand, hampered by your Protests against the Catholic Church, can not read it that way and are forced to explain it with alternative interpretations.

Now there’s a weak argument based solely on the longevity of the CC, an argument which requires you to work backward, engaging in anachronism.

What has this got to do with longevity. The truth is the truth.

Originally Posted by paul c
You read this passage and came away with the feeling that all of the Apostles were equal…

I don’t have a feeling about the passage, Paul, but an understanding of it.

I understand that the apostles didn’t understand that Jesus had made Peter the leader of the church.

Its too bad that you don’t have tradition to fall back on, because then you would see the error of your interpretation.

Originally Posted by paul c
Saying that there are church fathers with conflicting views but offering no examples to support your point isn’t really adequate to make this statement, now is it?

It’s a general statement, Paul.

There any number of statements by the fathers on the Mt 16 passage, stating, as I have, that while Peter is the rock, it’s his confession, which is also the confession of every believer, upon which the Church is built.

Here’s two: that should be available from Schaff on the web: Athanasius, (Schaff, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953)], Letters of Athanasius, Letter 29, p. 551). Augustine (Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956], Vol. Vi, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341.

Its okay to say that the Church is built on the concept that Jesus is the savior of the world. We’d all agree with that. But the Matthew 16 passage is in clear language, “you are rock and on this rock, I will build my church”.

Originally Posted by paul c
Who is Ludwig Ott

A Catholic theologian. His quote is general as well, in fact, on review, it’s contextually stated more with respect to the battle against Arianism, so I’ll drop it.

You make your references suspect when you call them out and then have to recant when asked to show the details.

Come into the light that is the Catholic Church and save yourself…

 

[Howie01]

paul c:

Howie, you act like this is some kind of debate, where you can score points instead of an opportunity to find the truth. That is to you detriment.

You don’t know that for certain Paul.

Remember what you said: ”Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong.”

That’s an admission that you really don’t know if you have the truth; rather, you’re playing the odds.
paul c:

In the discussion above, you try to render my theology as unsupportable, because I am personally fallible.

No I haven’t. I’ve been very clear that I find your theology unsupportable because Scripture doesn’t support it. Your fallibility is a different issue.
paul c:

You are indicting yourself by this logic, because after all, you have no basis for your interpretations other than your own opinions, which you also admit are fallble.

I’ve got news for you, Paul, neither do you have any basis for the interpretations you embrace, other than your own opinions, it’s just that Catholics can’t see that until it’s pointed out to them. That’s what I’m doing now, working at point out to you that everything you believe is founded on your own private interpretation.
paul c:

This does not apply to me, however, because my theology is not personal.

I understand that. You really don’t know whether or not your theology is true; rather, you’re playing the odds: ”Faith and logic dictate that the probability of me being wrong is far less than the probability of you being wrong;” I understand what you’re doing, I have your words.

It is the theology passed down by the Apostles through the Catholic Church, which is infact, infallable, protected by the Holy Spirit.

You mean, you think there’s a higher probability of that being true, but you’re not absolutely sure because you’re fallible.
paul c:

No, this is the infallible teaching of the Catholic Church.

Correction: you think there’s a higher probability of that being true, but you’re not absolutely sure because you’re fallible.
paul c:

no, I fulfilled your request perfectly. I showed you how our tradition works. Just because I didn’t answer as you expected, doesn’t make it incorrect.

I’m not going to argue on this, Paul, I have yet to meet a Catholic who can list the unwritten traditions with support for who didn’t write them.
paul c:

What has this got to do with longevity. The truth is the truth.

Exactly, many argue the RCC is the true church because it’s been around so long, but history doesn’t determine truth. Truth is truth, and is readily available in the scripture to the one whom God wills to reveal it.
paul c:

Its too bad that you don’t have tradition to fall back on, because then you would see the error of your interpretation.

Paul, I have all the truth I need, to be adequately equipped for every good work, revealed in the Scripture. I don’t need your tradition for that.
paul c:

You make your references suspect when you call them out and then have to recant when asked to show the details.

I’m an honest guy; more than that, plenty of quotes are available from any number of the fathers saying that the Church is built upon the proclamation of Peter’s confession. My Church is built on that.
paul c:

Come into the light that is the Catholic Church and save yourself…

And save myself?

No thank you Paul, Scripture has adequately equipped me with the knowledge that I cannot save myself, but that I need a Savior.

 

[Luke65]

And save myself?

No thank you Paul, Scripture has adequately equipped me with the knowledge that I cannot save myself, but that I need a Savior.

1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

 

[Nino]

unlike the silly Jesus Christ super star nonsense and Jesus with a guitar etc…He was one rugged man…He worked for his dad and his dad was a carpenter and mason…imagine if you can ,a trade that had no fancy tools…everything had to be done by hand…that meant muscle!!! Thus when Jesus wanted to praise Peter he used as a metaphore the term ‘rock’ to signify that from now on he ,Peter,will be steadfast in following the teachings of Jesus…and thus will Peters followers…ie The RCC church!!! Jesus again used the term…building a house on sand…He knew about the frost line and how one must never build on a weak foundation etc…as a former teacher of architecture I can well attest to what Jesus warned about! The Man on the Shroud was muscular and fixed…not a hippy who only whined about communist nations to be free,but rather mankind to be free…and thus it had to be smeared …on and on it goes…like citi-bank…satan never sleeps…

 

[Howie01]

1 Timothy 4:16
Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers.

Explain.

 

[paul_c]

Howie,

when you say this:

I’ve got news for you, Paul, neither do you have any basis for the interpretations you embrace, other than your own opinions, it’s just that Catholics can’t see that until it’s pointed out to them. That’s what I’m doing now, working at point out to you that everything you believe is founded on your own private interpretation.

it just shows that you don’t understand how Catholics approach their faith. We don’t have “opinions” about what scripture means. We instead are willing to submit to the interpretations of scripture that the Church provides, confident in the promise of Christ that the Holy Spirit will guide our way. So when we read scripture, we look for the official interpretation. We are guided through the homilies of our priests and we of course have the official view of the church through the Catechism. We also have sites like this one to learn the official view of a whole range of Catholic issues. So we don’t have opinions, knowing that to be worthless, instead we look to the Church to define the absolute truth.

From a Catholic point of view, it is an incredibly arrogant statement for someone to read scripture on their own and come up with a different view than the Church teaches. After all, the church view came from the same Apostles that wrote the scriptures you reference. How can you ever claim to know more about a book than the book’s authors? Furthermore, the Church view has been revealed through the Holy Spirit and refined by literally millions of theologians and withstood 2000 years of scrutiny. It is the truth. It is not an opinion.

So, look, knowing all this, you can choose to deny the truth and follow your own intuition. Where your intuition agrees with Catholic teachings, you will be correct. Where it deviates, you will be wrong. You might think that’s an arrogant statement but in fact, it is the humble one, since we are willing to folllow the teaching of Christ through his Church. The arrogant one is the one who thinks he personally has better insight than the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.