Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[just_came_back]

Hi, Justcameback,

Here is a link you may find helpful in addressing the Primacy of Peter: scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

It has been my understanding and experience that most Protestants are firm believers in Sola Scriptura - especially if they can pick and choose their own interpretation of the Revealed Word of God. By coming to the table after praying to the Holy Spirit and then with scriptural references you have studied along with the Catholic theology supporting Matt 16:18 - you will do just fine!

God bless

Thanks for the link!

 

[aussie_stockman]

Well, after a long absence, I’m back… With a conclusion…

I’ve always been bothered that Matt 16:18 says “…you are Petros, and upon this petra…”, and of course, many non-Catholics find that scripture to mean something quite different than Catholics.

The most obvious question is this: If Jesus was speaking Aramaic, and that Aramaic was translated into Greek, then why didn’t the writer simply say “…you are Petros, and upon this Petros I will build my church”?

Jimmy Akin (a Catholic apologist) gives three possible reasons why the Greek doesn’t say “…Petros… Petros…”, and all one can say is “yeh, OK, sure, I guess it could have worked one of those ways”…

The thing is, the Catholic understanding of this scripture doesn’t depend on “linguistics”. There are any number of assertions that one can make in order to explain why “Petros… petra…” was used. And, of course, non-Catholics can argue against the “linguistics” that Catholics use, and they have a much easier case to prove.

But, that doesn’t matter. The Catholic understanding of this scripture is based on Church Tradition. That is, BEFORE the N.T. scriptures were ever written down, Church Tradition existed. Before the writer of Matthew ever wrote Matt 16:18 (which was merely recording an incident), that incident (obviously) had already taken place, and what what said, and what it meant, was part of Tradition. And, that Tradition ALWAYS held that Peter (Petros) was the rock upon which Christ would build His church.

This is not to say that Tradition “trumps” scripture in this instance. Rather, the Catholic position is that Tradition “illuminates” the scripture. The scripture is just the “written version” of something that had already been understood in a certain fashion in Tradition, and according to the Catholic view, that Tradition was always that Petros was the rock…

Fair enough…

But, consider the books of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, both written by Luke, apparantly as a “Part 1” and “Part 2” volume, both Parts addressed to a man named Theophilus…

Now, we know that these books were written AFTER Paul had arrived in Rome, and BEFORE Paul was martyred, which means they were written somewhere between about 62 AD and 65 AD, about 30 years after the Ascension of Christ.

Read the opening verse of this two-part volume carefully:

]1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Here, Luke CLEARLY states that he has investigated things “just as they were handed down to us” (Tradition) - and that he has investigated “everything carefully from the beginning”, in order to give Theophilus the “exact truth”. Luke has investigated THIRTY YEARS of Tradition - carefully - in order to give a complete account to Theophilus.

In the Gospel of Luke, he writes about “Peters confession”. Yet he makes NO MENTION at all of the part that says “…you are Petros, and upon this Petra…”. Now, that, in itself, is not significant. But what IS significant is that Luke, who has investigated all the traditions carefully, NEVER makes any mention of Peter being “the rock” at any time in his Gospel OR in “Part 2” (the Book of Acts).

In fact, Peter basically “dissappears” from the Book of Acts about halfway through the book, never to be mentioned again, while Paul (on the other hand) is followed clear to Rome.

Furthermore, Luke writes that JAMES (the brother of Jesus) was the Bishop of Jerusalem BEFORE the Great Persecution began. This is significant, because the church existed almost ENTIRELY in Jerusalem up until that persecution (which Saul/Paul was very instrumental in). At that time, there simply were no other “bishops” anyplace oustside of Jerusalem, and James was the head of the church in Jerusalem.

Granted, Peter WAS indeed a “leader”, a VERY important “player” (as it were), and Luke most certainly notes instances of his leadership. But the highest “office” that Luke ever attributes to Peter was as bishop of Antioch, and this was many years after the persecution began.

So, Luke, who knew the apostles personally, who traveled with Paul, and was extremely well-informed - is attempting to write, with great accuracy, ALL the Traditions that had been “handed down”, in order to give an EXACT account to Theophilus, and never ONCE does he place Peter as being “the head of the Church”.

His account, written between about 62 AD and 65 AD, based not only on first-hand knowledge of what happened, but also based on all the information he could compile from eyewitnesses, never says anything about Peter being the head of the church.

In fact, there is not ONE SINGLE BOOK of the N.T. that clearly proclaims that Peter was “the rock”, and yet, all of the Gospels were Tradition that had been written down. Likewise, none of the epistles (which were “real-time” writings) never make mention of Peter as being the head of the Church.

So, I have PROFOUND doubts that Peter was EVER the “head of the church”. Or, if he was, then it might be that he became head of the church at ROME (which, at that time, was still a “satellite” of the church at Jerusalem) after he finally got there, as he was once head of the Church at Antioch, but there is NO clear statement that from the time of the pronouncement of Matt 16:18 that Peter was clearly understood, from that point on, to be the head of the Church.

Therefore, I have decided that I’m not going to pursue becoming Catholic. We have clear recordings of Tradition in the Gospels and the Book of Acts, and they say nothing about Peter being “the first Pope”. It just appears to me that “later traditions” that consider Peter to be “the rock” are more like “legends”, and clearly the Orthodox never agreed with them… And, I think I’ll have to go more with the Orthodox…

Thanks for all your (name removed by moderator)ut, insights, and information…

Aussie

 

[tqualey]

Hi Aussie,

The first part of your post was really quite good!

The second part has a few problems that you may want to consider.

Your conclusion, however, has a major flaw. So, let’s see what we have…

But, consider the books of the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, both written by Luke, apparantly as a “Part 1” and “Part 2” volume, both Parts addressed to a man named Theophilus…

Now, we know that these books were written AFTER Paul had arrived in Rome, and BEFORE Paul was martyred, which means they were written somewhere between about 62 AD and 65 AD, about 30 years after the Ascension of Christ.

Read the opening verse of this two-part volume carefully:

]1 Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Here, Luke CLEARLY states that he has investigated things “just as they were handed down to us” (Tradition) - and that he has investigated “everything carefully from the beginning”, in order to give Theophilus the “exact truth”. Luke has investigated THIRTY YEARS of Tradition - carefully - in order to give a complete account to Theophilus.

In the Gospel of Luke, he writes about “Peters confession”. Yet he makes NO MENTION at all of the part that says “…you are Petros, and upon this Petra…”. Now, that, in itself, is not significant. But what IS significant is that Luke, who has investigated all the traditions carefully, NEVER makes any mention of Peter being “the rock” at any time in his Gospel OR in “Part 2” (the Book of Acts).

In fact, Peter basically “dissappears” from the Book of Acts about halfway through the book, never to be mentioned again, while Paul (on the other hand) is followed clear to Rome.

Furthermore, Luke writes that JAMES (the brother of Jesus) was the Bishop of Jerusalem BEFORE the Great Persecution began. This is significant, because the church existed almost ENTIRELY in Jerusalem up until that persecution (which Saul/Paul was very instrumental in). At that time, there simply were no other “bishops” anyplace oustside of Jerusalem, and James was the head of the church in Jerusalem.

Granted, Peter WAS indeed a “leader”, a VERY important “player” (as it were), and Luke most certainly notes instances of his leadership. But the highest “office” that Luke ever attributes to Peter was as bishop of Antioch, and this was many years after the persecution began.

So, Luke, who knew the apostles personally, who traveled with Paul, and was extremely well-informed - is attempting to write, with great accuracy, ALL the Traditions that had been “handed down”, in order to give an EXACT account to Theophilus, and never ONCE does he place Peter as being “the head of the Church”.

His account, written between about 62 AD and 65 AD, based not only on first-hand knowledge of what happened, but also based on all the information he could compile from eyewitnesses, never says anything about Peter being the head of the church.

In fact, there is not ONE SINGLE BOOK of the N.T. that clearly proclaims that Peter was “the rock”, and yet, all of the Gospels were Tradition that had been written down. Likewise, none of the epistles (which were “real-time” writings) never make mention of Peter as being the head of the Church.

So, I have PROFOUND doubts that Peter was EVER the “head of the church”. Or, if he was, then it might be that he became head of the church at ROME (which, at that time, was still a “satellite” of the church at Jerusalem) after he finally got there, as he was once head of the Church at Antioch, but there is NO clear statement that from the time of the pronouncement of Matt 16:18 that Peter was clearly understood, from that point on, to be the head of the Church.
Aussie

Ultimately, you are demanding evidence from Luke - and, all the other writers that simply is not there. But, you neglect to look to other sources - and this is a significant omission. The Early Church Fathers - who were chronologically much closer to the Apostles then anyone engage in the 16th Century revolt - clearly identified that the successor of Peter was the head of the Church. So, if there was confusion, doubt - even PROFOUND doubt - it seems to me that it would have come up then. But, just look at Church History for yourself - century after century, the successor of Peter was considered to be the head of the Catholic Church.

This is truly something that I have found virtually every Protestant denying or simply ignoring. The mental picture is that Christianity was somehow supressing the Truth - and that would be Christ’s Chruch founded on Peter was supressing the love of God throughout the world! And, then in the 16th Century - people suddenly arose to found their own groups that denounced the Church founded by Christ -because of the actions of sinful men. You know, it is nothing short of amazing that the 10 remaining Apostles did not denounce Peter for his 3x denial of Christ! But, they didn’t … and I think that speaks volumes.

So if you want a clear statement - let me give you one, and one that you can prayerfully consider: Luke 10:16. Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Luke_10 I would recommend you read the entire chapter.

Now, it is your choice where you wish to place your faith. I think there is clear and convincing evidence that Christ founded His Church on Peter and this was accepted by the Apostles and those who followed after them. If you wish to put your faith in a man made religion, that is up to you.

God bless

 

[aussie_stockman]

hey, Tom -

Well, I’ve read a whole bunch on Church Tradition, and the thing that stands out to me is the fact that (for example) the “Petrine doctrine” (if I have that name right) was debated among Church Fathers. That debate was never truly settled, and was one of the things eventually led to the Great Schism.

But, it’s not as if there was always some kind of “unanimity” over the whole issue. That whole decision as to the meaning of Matt 16:18 came down to people making a decision about what they believed. In this respect, it was no different than people having to make a decision as to whether drinking of alcohol was good or bad, or whether using musical instruments in worship was scriptural or not.

In any case, making the claim that the Petrine doctrine was based on Church Tradition is really a mis-statement. It would be more accurate to say it was based on Catholic Church Tradition. After all, the Orthodox have a different Tradition which they claim as their basis for their beliefs.

In short, it looks like a coin-toss to me. I don’t see any Absolute Truth in the Papacy, nor in the views of the Orthodox or Protestant. What I see is just people trying to hash out what they believe, and in the long run, it may or may not be true.

The only Absolute Truth I see is Jesus Christ himself. Knowing Jesus personally.

And, I’ll admit - I have a tremendously hard time believing that God would reveal Christ to me, not by flesh and blood, but by His Holy Spirit, and then leave it up to me and my own intellect to figure out a doctrine that people have been debating for two centuries. I’m not smart enough to figure out exactly what was meant by Matt 16:18, but acccording to the Catholics, unless I figure it out the way they figured it out, then apparantly God revealed Christ to me as my Saviour, then will forever relegate me to some second-class status because I haven’t been smart enough to come to the same conclusions as the Catholics… (and dang, I’m really pretty smart, too…)

But, here’s some quotes by Church Fathers that evidently didn’t have it exactly figured out the way the Catholics have it now:

Tertullian:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’…and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’…In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation….(On Modesty XXI, 99).

Cyprian:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18–19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);—yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one (Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3-4, pp. 133-135).

Eusebius:

‘ Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’ Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the Church to be the words of the prophets and apostles, in accordance with the statement of the Apostle: ‘Built upon the foundation of the apostles and the prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone.’ (Commentary on the Psalms, vol. 23, col. 173, 176).

Augustine:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ **For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable **(Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (Sermon 229).

Cyril:

For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.

And I tell you…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (Sermons, XI, Sermon 229, p. 327).

Now - My intention in posting these quotes is NOT to try to persuade you from your Catholic faith. It is merely to demonstrate that this matter of “Peter the rock” was one of much debate, even with the Church Fathers.

Me? I’m going to let others have the Big Debate. What I KNOW is this: I’ve met Jesus personally, I have an intimate relationship with God in Christ. God has never had nearly as much interest in getting me into some particular church; rather, His interest is getting Christ into me.

As I said in the beginning: My faith is in Christ. And, I can honestly say that from the moment that Christ was revealed to me, I have never once doubted that Jesus is the Christ, or that the revelation was from God the Father. There is no debate involved. If my faith was based on something that was a matter of debate, then I could probably have doubts all my life. But, I don’t.

I don’t know if Peter was the rock (as the Catholics understand it), or if he was a rock in some other sense, or if maybe he wasn’t the rock at all. I’m sure not going to try to cling to one idea or the other as if my life depended on it. That is foolishness, and building a house on sand.

People can doubt whether Peter was the rock, but nobody can possibly know Christ personally and not know that Chist is The Rock.

So, I’m just stepping out of the Great Debate. I’ll leave it to guys who wear robes and funny hats, or black suits with little white collars. Let them hash it out till Jesus returns. When I can see which side of the fence Jesus Himself comes down on, then I’ll join Him there…

 

[SwissGuard25]

I know that the only direct translation of Aramaic Kephas to Greek would be Petra. Which is feminine, to give a male apostle a female name would be a disgrace. So they called him Petros

Which is really idiotic of the Evangelical site to say. If they called Peter, Petra that would be mean. As in me calling Paul, Paulette

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

I realize that a lot of time and effort has gone into examining and explaining Matt 16:18. And the vast majority of folks really spend their time on if Peter was the rock or a pebble, if Peter’s confession was the foundation or what have you. Truly, it is very taxing for my old brain. But, then I move on … actually, I don’t move very far, though … just to the next verse … Matt 16:19 - where Christ gives Peter the keys - and does not hand out 11 other sets! Here is a link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Matthew_16 It is Peter who is now identified as the leader of the Apostles - and, I think that is the take home message. There is a commentary on this link that you may be interested in. But, I would not want you to think I was trying to persuade you from your man-made religion. I’ll leave that up to you.

Ah, you were silent on the quote I gave you from Luke. Don’t be bashful… I would like to hear what you have to say about this.

Now, I really do think you have less then an accurate view of the Eastern and Wester Church from a historical standpoint. Here are some of the Eastern Early Church Fathers in their support of Peter being the leader of the Catholic Church: fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html Honest, for many years there was not dispute about who was in charge - and it was the Bishop of Rome all along.

I realize that you would like to say that this is essentially a coin-toss on who is right. In reality you don’t think either the Roman or Orthodox Churches are right but, rather some group that popped up 16 centuries later. If this were even clsoe to being accurate, then I think instead of Matt 16:18, you would have something like Christ gathering the Twleve together and telling them to just go and and do their own thing. Don’t worry about one Apostle coming up with contradictory doctrine - none of it is really important. The heart of the matter is that the Jesus I have crafted in my mind - the One Who doesn’t take sides and just wants to be friends with everyone - is doing just fine. He really does not make any demands - other then to just get along - and that is a good way to be.

So, feel free to exit this ‘Great Debate’ … but, your absence will be just another casualty along the road to actually standing where Christ said to stand. And, that position would be with the Church He founded on Peter. You seem to think this is an intelligence matter - but, actually, we are to have the Faith in Christ that a little child has - and this is not from a position on lofty intelligence… but, rather one of humility.

God bless

hey, Tom -

Well, I’ve read a whole bunch on Church Tradition, and the thing that stands out to me is the fact that (for example) the “Petrine doctrine” (if I have that name right) was debated among Church Fathers. That debate was never truly settled, and was one of the things eventually led to the Great Schism.

But, it’s not as if there was always some kind of “unanimity” over the whole issue. That whole decision as to the meaning of Matt 16:18 came down to people making a decision about what they believed. In this respect, it was no different than people having to make a decision as to whether drinking of alcohol was good or bad, or whether using musical instruments in worship was scriptural or not.

In any case, making the claim that the Petrine doctrine was based on Church Tradition is really a mis-statement. It would be more accurate to say it was based on Catholic Church Tradition. After all, the Orthodox have a different Tradition which they claim as their basis for their beliefs.

In short, it looks like a coin-toss to me. I don’t see any Absolute Truth in the Papacy, nor in the views of the Orthodox or Protestant. What I see is just people trying to hash out what they believe, and in the long run, it may or may not be true.

The only Absolute Truth I see is Jesus Christ himself. Knowing Jesus personally.

And, I’ll admit - I have a tremendously hard time believing that God would reveal Christ to me, not by flesh and blood, but by His Holy Spirit, and then leave it up to me and my own intellect to figure out a doctrine that people have been debating for two centuries. I’m not smart enough to figure out exactly what was meant by Matt 16:18, but acccording to the Catholics, unless I figure it out the way they figured it out, then apparantly God revealed Christ to me as my Saviour, then will forever relegate me to some second-class status because I haven’t been smart enough to come to the same conclusions as the Catholics… (and dang, I’m really pretty smart, too…)

But, here’s some quotes by Church Fathers that evidently didn’t have it exactly figured out the way the Catholics have it now:

Now - My intention in posting these quotes is NOT to try to persuade you from your Catholic faith. It is merely to demonstrate that this matter of “Peter the rock” was one of much debate, even with the Church Fathers.

Me? I’m going to let others have the Big Debate. What I KNOW is this: I’ve met Jesus personally, I have an intimate relationship with God in Christ. God has never had nearly as much interest in getting me into some particular church; rather, His interest is getting Christ into me.

As I said in the beginning: My faith is in Christ. And, I can honestly say that from the moment that Christ was revealed to me, I have never once doubted that Jesus is the Christ, or that the revelation was from God the Father. There is no debate involved. If my faith was based on something that was a matter of debate, then I could probably have doubts all my life. But, I don’t.

I don’t know if Peter was the rock (as the Catholics understand it), or if he was a rock in some other sense, or if maybe he wasn’t the rock at all. I’m sure not going to try to cling to one idea or the other as if my life depended on it. That is foolishness, and building a house on sand.

People can doubt whether Peter was the rock, but nobody can possibly know Christ personally and not know that Chist is The Rock.

So, I’m just stepping out of the Great Debate. I’ll leave it to guys who wear robes and funny hats, or black suits with little white collars. Let them hash it out till Jesus returns. When I can see which side of the fence Jesus Himself comes down on, then I’ll join Him there…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, SwissGuard25,

I really have to disagree with you on this… the Evangelicals are not being idiotic on this ‘Paul vs Paulette’ as an English response to a Greek choice of words. They are really being both creative and sincere in this matter.

As I see it, the issue is very complex but can be summarized as follows:

1- If you once believed the Catholic Church was founded by Christ on Peter (most of those involved in the 16th Century revolt were priests, monks or religious) and then found that serious public scandal was becoming known world-wide and it had to be stopped.

2- Your efforts (for whatever reason) are not effective but resigning one’s self to seeing beyond the sinful men that are in charge of the Church founded by Christ is very distasteful. If those in leadership positions will not mend their evil ways - then they should be kicked out of office. Failing that course of action, then splitting off from the Vine seems like the next best move.

3- Once one has severed their relationship to theVine - then there is no going back to get priests, the Sacraments, the teaching authority of the Magisterium - and the leadership of the Pope. So, one had better creatively come up with a way to say that none of this was ever needed - so breaking away is now seen as a health move rather then a self-amputation.

Note, this type of creativity is responsible for the 30,000+ Protestant groups with none of them agreeing on any set of doctrines (note, Protestantism claims they agree on the major points but only disagree on the small ones. The snag is that no one has ever gotten their list of ‘Major Points’ agreed upon by the others! And, the reason for this - no one is willing to say that someone else has the authority to determine what is major and what is minor. One does not have to dig very far before hitting a solid layer of pride rather then humility.

God bless

I know that the only direct translation of Aramaic Kephas to Greek would be Petra. Which is feminine, to give a male apostle a female name would be a disgrace. So they called him Petros

Which is really idiotic of the Evangelical site to say. If they called Peter, Petra that would be mean. As in me calling Paul, Paulette

 

[Mystophilus]

I know that the only direct translation of Aramaic Kephas to Greek would be Petra. Which is feminine, to give a male apostle a female name would be a disgrace. So they called him Petros

Which is really idiotic of the Evangelical site to say. If they called Peter, Petra that would be mean. As in me calling Paul, Paulette

Πετρα was not the only choice. The Peshitta, the Aramaic Bible, uses *Keepa *(transliterated as Κηφας in the Greek) not only where the Greek uses πετρα but where it uses πετρος (q.v. Jn 1:42) and, indeed, where it uses λιθος (Mt 24:2). Πετρα/πετρος in Mt 16:18 is a deliberate pun, one which Catholic and anti-Catholic apologists alike have frequently been guilty of oversimplifying when eristic motivations outweigh heuristic ones.

 

[Mystophilus]

2- Your efforts (for whatever reason) are not effective but resigning one’s self to seeing beyond the sinful men that are in charge of the Church founded by Christ is very distasteful. If those in leadership positions will not mend their evil ways - then they should be kicked out of office. Failing that course of action, then splitting off from the Vine seems like the next best move.

Then there was the Aedifice Complex: you Catholics had all the prettiest buildings, and so a -]creative excuse/-] compelling reason had to be -]manufactured/-] found to confiscate them and their gardens.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Mystophilus,

I had never seen edifice spelt with an “A” before. Is that a British spelling, or did you have something else in mind.

Yes, those pretty buildings and well-tended gardens were tempting … but, nothing like the money and other assets that were held by the Catholic Church throughout Euope…

Maybe you would like to channel your own creative spirit and address the thrust of my argument. As long as we are dealing with sinful human beings the Church founded by Christ on Peter will demonstrate public scandal as a failure to actually do good and avoid evil. I am quite confident that all of those who engaged in the various public scandals involving the Catholic Church were judged by God for this major failure. I am, however, equially confident that Christ did not return to Earth, speak to Luther, Calvin, Henry VIII or anyone else and say, “I’m taking back what authority I gave to the Catholic Church - you guys create your own doctrine. We will settle accounts when you appear before Me!”

Besides, when one looks at Aussie’s rather detailed argument he seems to have painted himself into a corner. He disputes Matt 16, he seems to applaud the Orthodox schism because he almost sides with them … but then, like a bolt out of the blue - claims all are the same and he has already made his choice with a man-made religion. Possibly, you have another view of his posts?

God bless

Then there was the Aedifice Complex: you Catholics had all the prettiest buildings, and so a -]creative excuse/-] compelling reason had to be -]manufactured/-] found to confiscate them and their gardens.

 

[aussie_stockman]

MAN MADE RELIGION???

c’mon, guys… YOU guys are the ones who tout “religion”. I got a RELATIONSHIP with Christ.

I gave you guys the opportunity to share with me the reasons you believe as you do, regarding “Peter the rock”.

Some of you have given it your best shot, and have given me good reading materials, good viewpoints, good info to consider.

But the bottom line is that it all hinges on “Church Tradition”. But, it is as clear as day that “Church Tradition” regarding “Peter the rock” (ie, the Papacy) was hardly anything that was accepted with any “unanimous consensus” at all.

I mean, when you got guys like Augustine writing “For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable” (Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1), then it can hardly be claimed that “Church Tradition” was as rock-solid as you guys would like to think it was…

So, I’ve just done what Augustine suggested: “let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the most probable”…

shrug

 

[ahs]

…Here, Luke CLEARLY states that he has investigated things “just as they were handed down to us” (Tradition) - and that he has investigated “everything carefully from the beginning”, in order to give Theophilus the “exact truth”. Luke has investigated THIRTY YEARS of Tradition - carefully - in order to give a complete account to Theophilus.

In the Gospel of Luke, he writes about “Peters confession”. Yet he makes NO MENTION at all of the part that says “…you are Petros, and upon this Petra…”. Now, that, in itself, is not significant. But what IS significant is that Luke, who has investigated all the traditions carefully, NEVER makes any mention of Peter being “the rock” at any time in his Gospel OR in “Part 2” (the Book of Acts).

Neither does he mention the Holy Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity is also not a Christian Tradition?

MAN MADE RELIGION???

c’mon, guys… YOU guys are the ones who tout “religion”. I got a RELATIONSHIP with Christ.

Christ also touted religion. What did Jesus say about those in the Chair of Moses? Do as they say, but not as they do, right? But they had the authoirty by that Chair such that we must do as they said, no? Was Christ wrong? It was Christ who established a Church. “…Upon this Rock I will…” (finish the sentence)

-"…set me Bible…"?

-"…establish a group of believers who profess a similar faith in Me yet with no visible structure…"?

-"…build My Church."

And who did Christ hand the keys of the Kingdom to?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Maybe I missed something … but, the Catholic Church traces its origin from Christ beginning in the 1st Century to the present day. You identify yourself as a ‘Protestant’ - and there are no records of ‘Protestants’ prior to the 16th Century. Each Protestant group made a conscious decision to reject the Catholic Church. So, if you object to the term ‘man-made-religion’ would you please tell me the history of your ‘Protestant’ religion including who founded it?

Now, I am sure you are aware that St. Augustine was a prolific writer. Your presentation that this great saint of the Catholic Church did not support the Pope as the leader is really quite curious. It may be that you are just not aware of this aspect of Augustine’s writings. Here are couuple of links that may be helpful:
catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0259r.htm

When it comes to Tertullian (160-220), the best that I can say is that he lived a complex life. Things were not as simple for this great man in te 2nd Century as they are for us - in the 21st Century
Here’s a link: newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

But, rather then get into a pointless discussion - please do not continue to argue that 1600+ years after Christ’s birth - Luther and those who came after him, finally got it ‘right’ when all that came before him got it wrong. In my view, the weight of history is simply dismissed by most Protestants because it makes their position far more difficult to defend.

God bless

As great as St Augustine is - you really need to look at all of the Early Church Fathers

MAN MADE RELIGION???

c’mon, guys… YOU guys are the ones who tout “religion”. I got a RELATIONSHIP with Christ.

I gave you guys the opportunity to share with me the reasons you believe as you do, regarding “Peter the rock”.

Some of you have given it your best shot, and have given me good reading materials, good viewpoints, good info to consider.

But the bottom line is that it all hinges on “Church Tradition”. But, it is as clear as day that “Church Tradition” regarding “Peter the rock” (ie, the Papacy) was hardly anything that was accepted with any “unanimous consensus” at all.

I mean, when you got guys like Augustine writing “For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable” (Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1), then it can hardly be claimed that “Church Tradition” was as rock-solid as you guys would like to think it was…

So, I’ve just done what Augustine suggested: “let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the most probable”…

shrug

 

[Mystophilus]

So, I’ve just done what Augustine suggested: “let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the most probable”…

shrug

As regards the Greek terms for rocks in Mt 16:18, they are frequently misrepresented by both sides: πετρος and πετρα were neither identical nor entirely different, and that was the point behind the pun.

Πετρα is not “big rock”. It is the collective term for the material, and, as is typical for collectives, is therefore of the ‘feminine’ class: this is *grammatical *gender, not biological sex, and is determined by the linguistic function of the term. This is a term which was used when someone wanted to talk about “a lot of rock”.

Πετρος is not “small rock”. It is the term for a separated instance of the material, and is distinguished from the collective by using a slightly different form, and, typically, a different set of ‘gender’ endings: we do have examples of πετρος being given ‘feminine’ grammatical gender (Anthologia Palatina 7.274 and 7.479). Grammatical gender could be fairly flexible. This is a term which is used when someone wanted to talk about a pebble small enough to fit into your palm or a boulder large enough to crush a house.

What Mt 16:18 says in Greek, καγω δε σοι λεγω οτι συ ει πετρος και επι ταυτη τη πετρα οικοδομησω μου την εκκλησιαν, is that Jesus was to build his Church upon Peter and upon the stuff from which Peter was made. The pun operates on the basis of the two terms being closely related but different. Peter is thus both the first foundation stone of the Church *and *the archetype of the foundation of the Church. It is not in itself and argument for Petrine supremacy, but it most definitely is an argument for Petrine primacy. This is very evident if you look at the variety of ways in which the Early Church Fathers read the passage (and there is a good list of those in GWH Lampe’s Patristic Greek Lexicon, under πετρος): they read it as the Church being built upon Peter himself, upon his faith and its confession, upon those who had such faith and made such a confession, and thus upon believers in general.

Unfortunately, some Catholic apologists try to fudge the difference between the terms, whilst some Protestant apologists try to exaggerate the difference between the terms. Both are guilty of degrading the linguistic flair of the original comment.

Still, as regards an issue like whether or not you ought to be Catholic, I would advise against placing too much weight upon any single passage of Scripture, and would instead suggest looking at how Catholicism functions differently from Orthodoxy (e.g. scholasticism versus mysticism, Roman centralisation versus conciliar consensus) and from Protestantism (e.g., views of the Bible and how it is interpreted, connections with the history of Christianity, the episcopal system). Consider those things, pray passionately about the issue, and trust your loving God to lead you to the right place.

 

[Mystophilus]

I had never seen edifice spelt with an “A” before. Is that a British spelling, or did you have something else in mind.

Like “mediaeval”, rather than “medieval”, it is closer to the word’s Latin origin. It does not get used much these days, but I am happily old-fashioned.

Yes, those pretty buildings and well-tended gardens were tempting … but, nothing like the money and other assets that were held by the Catholic Church throughout Euope…

To be boringly accurate, it was the land attached to the buildings which was the target, land and its rents being the primary source of stable wealth in the C16th, but that did not work so well for the facetious commentary, and a lot of those old churches *are * indeed desirable.

Besides, when one looks at Aussie’s rather detailed argument he seems to have painted himself into a corner. He disputes Matt 16, he seems to applaud the Orthodox schism because he almost sides with them … but then, like a bolt out of the blue - claims all are the same and he has already made his choice with a man-made religion. Possibly, you have another view of his posts?

I am afraid that I had not looked at his comments, and am wary about jumping in on someone else’s argument, but I have just made a comment to him regard the misreadings of the Greek.

 

[aussie_stockman]

tqualey —

you said:

Hi, Aussie,

Maybe I missed something … but, the Catholic Church traces its origin from Christ beginning in the 1st Century to the present day. You identify yourself as a ‘Protestant’ - and there are no records of ‘Protestants’ prior to the 16th Century. Each Protestant group made a conscious decision to reject the Catholic Church. So, if you object to the term ‘man-made-religion’ would you please tell me the history of your ‘Protestant’ religion including who founded it?

God bless

First of all - I categorically do NOT identify myself as a Protestant.

I don’t “protest” the Catholic Church one bit. I think you guys can believe whatever you want. It’s totally fine with me.

I don’t really know, and really don’t care what the “Protestants” have to say about much of any of this, either.

I’ve come in to this site as a believer in Jesus Christ - one who knows Him personally and intimately - and have courteously asked questions, considering whether or not to become Catholic.

I have probably read more than most any Catholics have on the subject of the Papacy - ie, the “Petrine Doctrine”, the “Primacy of Peter”, and I have read (probably as much, if not more) Church history than most people on this board.

I probably know more - and with far greater authority - of the “linguistic considerations” of Matt 16:18 than most anyone on this board, and I believe I can say quite comfortably, probably more than the majority of Priests.

And, the bottom line always comes down to this: The Catholic understanding of Matt 16:18 is based not on exegisis nor on linguistics, but on Church Tradition (which is valid). But - the meaning of Matthew 16:18 was NOT at all as clear-cut and agreed upon as some of you guys make it out to be. Certainly the role of the “Bishop of Rome” was not.

I don’t deny that there were some people who believed from early on that somehow the Church was to be built on Simon Peter. I also can see, very clearly, in the writings of some of the Church Fathers, that they were not at all unanimous in that position.

Thus, it may have been the position of SOME that the Church would be built on “the rock, Simon Peter”, but it was equally the position of others that the Church would be built on “the rock, Jesus Christ”, or on “the Revealed Truth that Jesus is the Christ” (AKA “Peters Confession”).

Somebody back in time had to decide which one was going to be the “official line”. AND, that decision was made by PEOPLE. It was something that was talked about, written about, and debated, and finally it was decided that the Seat of Authority would rest on “Peter” (or subsequent Popes).

Even then, it was not entirely hashed out how extensive that authority was. Was “Peter” (ie, “the Pope”) the “supreme authority” or was he “first among equals”? This very matter led to the Great Schism in 1054. In other words, the very nature of what was actually *meant * by Matt 16:18 had been debated for a thousand years, and finally, the part of the (then existant) Church that became known as “Roman Catholic” split off from the part that became known as “Orthodox”.

So, what I’m saying is this: I myself don’t really know if it’s true (or not) that Peter was “the rock”. What I know is this: There have been those that believe it since early on, and there have been those that didn’t believe it from early on. It was NEVER something that was just totally accepted by all believers.

In 1870, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick did research regarding the early church’s view of Matthew 16:18. Archbishop Kenrick prepared a paper on this subject, which was to be delivered to Vatican I, but wasn’t delivered. However, it was published later, and the Archbishop points out the 5 interpretations which Fathers of antiquity held to:

(1) Peter as the Rock, [17 Fathers],
(2) all the apostles, [8 Fathers],
(3) that the church was built on the faith that Peter confessed, [44 Fathers],
(4) Jesus as the Rock, [16 Fathers],
(5) all Christians were the living stones [5 Fathers]

Now, I don’t know anything about the Archbishop, except that he was Catholic. But, if his research was even PARTLY accurate, it would indicate that the Church Fathers had different beliefs (interpretations) of Matt 16:18

Somehow, Somewhere, Somebody felt they had to make a decision - for whatever reasons - as to what the “official version” would be. Those that went along with “Peter the rock” were Catholics, and (apparantly) all the others went the Orthodox route. I guess.

For me, personally, I just know - because God revealed it to me - that Jesus IS the Christ.

If it weren’t for that one, overwhelming, all-encompassing, massive TRUTH - then NOTHING about Christianity OR the person Jesus means a thing. If it weren’t for that one wonderful and horrifying TRUTH, Jesus would have been nothing more than another “notable teacher”.

So, I don’t know where Peter fits in. I mean, he wasn’t even the first to recognize Jesus as “the Christ”. His brother, who introduced him to Jesus, already called Jesus “the Messiah” (the Christ) when he first told Peter about Jesus.

Therefore, since I can’t quite figure out (to my own satisfaction) what relevance “Peter” (or subsequent Popes) have to me personally, then I guess I’m just not Catholic…

Is that OK with you?

 

[aussie_stockman]

**Mystophilus: **

regarding your post which began with:

As regards the Greek terms for rocks in Mt 16:18, they are frequently misrepresented by both sides: πετρος and πετρα were neither identical nor entirely different, and that was the point behind the pun.

The “lingustics” of Matt 16:18 have been debated endlessly.

The bottom line, regarding the linguistics, is that the Catholic position REQUIRES explanation in order for “…Petros… petra…” to make any sense. And, this “explaining” is exactly what you are doing.

The so-called “Protestant” argument (which, oddly enough, is not held by all Protestants) is that “…Petros… petra…” was used simply because the two words were referring to two different things.

There is no point in bothering with trying to “prove” anything according to lingusitics. The Catholics have a case (although it depends entirely upon “assertions”, yet it is a case that can be made), and the “Protestants” have a case (which is far simpler to make).

Ultimately, the Catholic viewpoint is based on Church Tradition, which the Catholic Church claims preceeded the “written” version found in Matt 16:18. That is, the C.C. claims that the understanding that “Peter is The Rock” was already the common understanding about what Jesus said before Matthew ever put it in writing.

I don’t know if thats true or not. I wasn’t there. There is simply no way to confirm it.

What I DO know is that very early on, there were those that held to that belief, and those that did not. It was never “universal”.

So, I don’t know which of those two beliefs is… well… more believable.

I’m not a “sola scriptura” guy, but in this case - if I have to make a decision about it - the total lack of any scripture that claims that Peter was indeed the “head of the church” makes me think that Peter - while being VERY imporant in the early church - may have, in fact, been exactly as he describes himself: a “fellow elder”… (1 Peter 5:1-4)

 

[ahs]

I’m not a “sola scriptura” guy, but in this case - if I have to make a decision about it - the total lack of any scripture that claims that Peter was indeed the “head of the church” makes me think that Peter - while being VERY imporant in the early church - may have, in fact, been exactly as he describes himself: a “fellow elder”… (1 Peter 5:1-4)

So, Christ did NOT give Peter, and only Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom (Mt 16:19)? Peter did NOT head the meeting during which Matthias was elected (Acts 1:13-26) ? Peter did NOT lead the Apostles in preaching at Pentacost (Acts 2:14) or inflict the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)? It was NOT Peter who led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7) and NOT Peter who announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:19)? And Peter did NOT say that it was by HIS own judgment (Acts 15:19)? Paul did NOT take time to become acquainted with the chief Apostles (Gal 1:8)? When Paul felt Peter was in error regarding Jews/Gentiles, Paul did NOT feel the need to confront Peter about it?

And according to your previous argument about Luke not mentioning Peter as the Pope, therefore it can’t be so, neither does he mention the Holy Trinity. Therefore, the Trinity is also not a Christian Tradition?

And in regards to your argument about “religion”, Christ also touted religion. What did Jesus say about those in the Chair of Moses? Do as they say, but not as they do, right? But they had the authoirty by that Chair such that we must do as they said, no? Was Christ wrong? It was Christ who established a Church. “…Upon this Rock I will…” (finish the sentence)

-"…set me Bible…"?

-"…establish a group of believers who profess a similar faith in Me yet with no visible structure…"?

-"…build My Church."

And who, and who ALONE, did Christ hand the Keys of the Kingdom to? And where else in Scripture do we see the handing-on of the keys of a Kingdom, who hands them to whom, and what does that signify?

Christ appointed Peter as the Head of His Church on earth.

 

[aussie_stockman]

ahs -

So, Christ did NOT give Peter, and only Peter, the Keys to the Kingdom (Mt 16:19)? Peter did NOT head the meeting during which Matthias was elected (Acts 1:13-26) ? Peter did NOT lead the Apostles in preaching at Pentacost (Acts 2:14) or inflict the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11)? It was NOT Peter who led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:7) and NOT Peter who announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:19)? And Peter did NOT say that it was by HIS own judgment (Acts 15:19)? Paul did NOT take time to become acquainted with the chief Apostles (Gal 1:8)? When Paul felt Peter was in error regarding Jews/Gentiles, Paul did NOT feel the need to confront Peter about it?

And who, and who ALONE, did Christ hand the Keys of the Kingdom to? And where else in Scripture do we see the handing-on of the keys of a Kingdom, who hands them to whom, and what does that signify?

Christ appointed Peter as the Head of His Church on earth.

What you’re doing here is simply giving your justifications - once again, in the form of rhetorical questions - as to why you hold to your particular beliefs.

Thats good.

But, I can counter your reasonings with a whole bunch of other reasonings, starting with the idea that Christ NEVER intended to have a “Papal heirarchy” in the first place.

I won’t do that, though.

Your beliefs have their roots in Catholic Church Tradition. The Orthodox (whom the Roman Catholics broke away from) hold to a different set of Traditions.

Protestants? Heck, they just had problems with what the Catholic Church had become at the time, I guess… I don’t keep up with them much.

But the bottom line is this: Your passion for your Church Traditions does nothing to convince me that they are correct. For all I know, the Orthodox had it right. shrug

For me? When God revealed “Jesus the Christ” to me (just as he had done with Peter), my “confession” was “You (Jesus) ARE the CHRIST”. If it were not for that revelation of that profound truth, Jesus would have simply remained an interesting “historical and religious figure”, not much different than Mohammed or the Dali Lama. I would have continued to see him simply as “a great moral teacher”, and would in no wise ever believed in the Resurrection.

It was the undeniable power of that Revealed Truth (by the Spirit of God, not by flesh and blood) that was the very basis of my ever believing in Jesus the Christ, and is the very reason that I have never once doubted that Jesus IS the Christ since that revelation.

When it was revealed to me by God that Jesus IS the Christ, it had nothing to do with any particular church… And this is exactly how it was for Peter as well. After all, the “church” didn’t even exist when Peter made his confession. And, for me, the “church” didn’t exist when I made mine.

What I know, from personal experience, is that I wouldn’t be a Christian at all, except for receiving that Revealed Truth that Jesus is indeed the Christ, the Promised Messiah. My faith rests solely on that Revealed Truth, a Truth which I simply can never deny, because the experience of that Revelation was the most profound and most real experience I’ve ever had in my life.

“Peter” simply didn’t figure in that equation. My faith in Christ has nothing whatsoever to do with “Peter”. He wasn’t even there when God revealed “Jesus the Christ” to me. I had no idea who “Peter” was at that time. (nor James, John, Matthew, etc, etc, etc)

If I had died on that same day of that Revelation, and had never even heard of Peter, Paul, Matthew, etc, I’m not sure it would have made a hill of beans difference to God. Knowing about those guys had NOTHING to do with that Revelation, nor with my salvation.

So I’m just saying that my own faith is based entirely on the Revealed Truth that Jesus IS the Christ, and my faith in that Truth is unshakeable. It is the one, singular Truth that upon which all else must be built.

The day of that Revelation was “Day One” for me. That was forty years ago. I didn’t even start to get curious about “Peter” until this last year. I’ve been a believer in Jesus the Christ for all these years, and never has anything in my life been “built on Peter”.

For me, the Truth that Jesus is the Christ has ALWAYS been “the rock”, even before I ever knew the scipture of Matt 16:18. Heck, even before I knew the term “Christ the Rock”, the Truth that “Jesus is the Christ” was my Rock, even if I would not have described that truth as being “a Rock”. I might have said that that Truth was my “basis”, or maybe even said it was my “foundation”. (It took a while for me to learn all the "Biblical terminology).

So, I just don’t see how Peter is my rock. Like I said, I didn’t even start to look into the Catholic Church until about a year ago. And, having looked into it, I find that whole concept of Peters “rockness” to be entirely foreign to me.

For me, it’s extraordinarly easy to accept that Jesus would build His church - a group of people that were “called out” - on the Revealed Truth that He is indeed the Promised Messiah, the Son of God, (and not merely some great “moral teacher”).

As I progressed in my faith in Jesus the Christ, I read the Bible (quite a bit) and discovered things that indicated that the foundation of the church was the apostles, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. But, I had to understand that in the light of that Revealed Truth, that “Jesus the Christ” was the REALITY upon which it was all built. So, I simply took those phrases about the apostles being the “foundation” as just a manner of expressing something about how the overall “construct” of the church worked. When I finally got around to pondering Matt 16:18, I had to read it in the same light of that Revelation, and simply took it to mean that Jesus would be building his church on the Truth represented in Peters confession (which was also my confession).

So, there you have it. I realize I have come to a different conclusion than you, but thats OK - you can conclude whatever you want. It’s OK with me…

 

[Mystophilus]

There is no point in bothering with trying to “prove” anything according to lingusitics.

I am afraid that I really do have to professionally disagree about the lack of value of demonstrating what a text meant to its first audience, and I was only wanting to contribute to the discussion how that text looks when reading in Greek and when one is trying neither to prove Roman supremacy right nor to prove Roman supremacy wrong. In that context, neither the polemically-oversimplified “it only means Peter” nor the polemically-oversimplified “it means not Peter but everyone” adequately explains the textual and contextual data available to us: they are both readings, but they are both rubbish readings.

the C.C. claims that the understanding that “Peter is The Rock” was already the common understanding about what Jesus said before Matthew ever put it in writing.

there were those that held to that belief, and those that did not. It was never “universal”.

So, I don’t know which of those two beliefs is… well… more believable.

What I would suggest is that you should stop trying to choose between them, then.

We have very clear evidence, both linguistic and historical, of the variety of readings of the passage. Rather than trying to decide which one is better, note the fact that individual Fathers could read the text in multiple ways, highlighting different aspects of it for different occasions. Accept them all, because they are all present in the text, and one of the things which the Fathers demonstrate in issuing multiple readings is the lack of any necessity to oversimplify the text and force the complex pun to only have one meaning.

If I may go further, I would advise a similar course with respect to Petrine Supremacy and Petrine Primacy. We have plenty of evidence that Petrine Supremacy did exist as an Early Church belief, predominantly amongst the Roman Fathers; we also have plenty of evidence that Petrine Supremacy did exist as an Early Church belief, particularly amongst the Greek Fathers (you have apparently seen some evidence of this, although I am not sure whether you have read their original words). This difference was what played out in the Filioque, the Photian Schism, and the Great Schism. Accept that both of those positions existed, and that it was our failure to communicate and to understand one another’s differences which broke the Church.

What we should take from all of this is something embedded in Jesus’ words in Mt 16:18 - that he builds his Church upon Peter and upon others, and that we need to recognise that plurality rather than try to carve lines between our own ranks. Otherwise, we risk validating the atrocity of the Fourth Crusade.