Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Yep, I see what you mean - and, you say that you do not speak for Protestants but only for yourself. OK.

The snag that I have encountered, Aussie, is that the arguments you used are, at least from my knowledge base and experience, Protestant arguments. I have not found the spread of these arguments to be contained in one post - you really did cover a lot of territory. And, I do have my own limitations.

I am really not sure what it is you want me to comment on if it is not (at the heart of it) that Christ did not found His Church on Peter. Unless I am mistaken, if you believed that this is what Christ did (per Matt 16:18) then we would not be having this particular discussion. Do you think that is an accurate statement?

My response tried to address your concern by identifying how the Catholic Church has remained true by faithfully teaching the commands of Christ. I used historic and contemporary examples to demonstrate this point. Now, if you think I just ‘nibbled at edges’ rather then went for the heart of the matter, give me some specific guidance. Ah but first, I do have one question I would like answered now - and this will help me to focus my response…

If you do not think Christ founded His Church on Peter - and his leadership directly traces to the Catholic Church, which one do you think He founded?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

tqualey —

Regarding your response that began with the quote below… I read it all, actually a couple of times…

I would like to ask you to re-read my post which you were responding to. As you know, I don’t speak for “Protestants”, nor for anybody else. I just speak for me.

You always seem to have some good insights, etc, but I’m kind of thinking that you might have missed the point that I was making in my post. Granted, I may not have made it very clear. But, if you wouldn’t mind, would you consider re-reading it? You usually seem to have a good idea of “where I’m going” in my (rambling) posts, but I’m just thinking that maybe you didn’t quite get my last one (and again, I may not have communicated clearly)…

BTW - believe it or not, I’m actually proceeding from the notion that Peter is indeed the rock in my last msg…

So, if you can take time to re-read it, I’m hoping you might see something different in it, and might be able to respond to the “issue” that I attempted to present. Since you are usually very good about getting what I’m attempting to say, then I’ll try, in another post, to re-state myself more clearly, in case your response doesn’t quite seem to address what I’m hoping to get at…

Aussie

 

[fisherman_carl]

This - which I quoted in my post:

Peter did not name a successor. No one is arguing that he was not the most prominent of the Apostles. But he didn’t exert authority over them, they all chose candidates and then they voted on it.

Corruption exists amongst Christians. That’s just a fact. Always has. At all levels. As this quote is at least part of the Scripture, we are at least on-topic. What do you think “the gates of hades will not prevail against it” means?

Catholics believe Jesus left someone in charge (feed my sheep) so that we wouldn’t have to argue about who was in charge. Like Korah did when he took 250 men against Moses and said, " You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Num 16:3).

" The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you,…"

• Mt 23:2

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

Just what kind of evidence do you require?

I disagree. I don’t think modern translations should use the word “church” at all, as what Jesus said was that He would assemble His “tribe” from a certain type. There is nothing to indicate it had to be a single, homogenous corporate body. In Scripture, in fact, Jesus indicates that it’s fine for people to be His followers and not be in His group with the Apostles and other disciples that were a single body.

From the time the Angel Gabriel delivered his Message to Mary - until He ascended to Heaven, we are repeatedly told that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. When Christ was ready to begin His Public Ministry - He invited certain people to be His Disciples - and this resulted in a group of 12 men. While from different backgrounds, educational levels and vocatons - they banded together into a single body with Christ as their Head. Later, Christ selected Peter to assume leadership of the Group as the foundation for Christ’s Church (Matt 16)

Christ had other followers - e.g., Luke 10 tells us about Him sending out the 72. Maybe there were others? But, we know about the 12 because they are named - and that is significant. This group of 12 men had difficulties - Judas betrayed Christ, all fled from the Garden, Peter denied Christ 3x, and only John out of the remining Apostles stood with Mary as He died on the Cross. Then the remaining 11 all gathered together as a single body from before Easter Sunday to beyond Ascension Thursday. I think there is a strong argument identifying that this group of men, commonly called the Apostles, were a united and focused group.

Then we have the miracle of Pentecost, when the Holy Spirit abundantly gave Divine Gifts to all of those assembled. In Acts 2 we see how this newly empowered group acted with one focus ( veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Acts_of_the_Apostles_2 ) Under Peter’s leadership, he gave the first sermon about belief in Christ and what was necessary to be saved.

Giving the impression that this was a losely knit, casually assembeled collection of men that did not form a unified group, but rather scattered and founded all of the competing religious groups we see today - is to truly misunderstand what Christ had done.

Christ did welcome those who believed in Him. Christ wanted some to join Him in a special way (whether as an Apostle, Disciple or in some other capacity, this is not known) and we have the Rich Young Man who declined the invitatin fro Christ as a reference (Matt 19) and others who wanted to join Christ’s group, but Christ declined and redirected the man (Matt 8). In my opinion, your statement is overly broad and misses important details.

But, maybe I missed something here… so, you tell me, just what is your source for claiming there was NO evidence “…to indicate it had to be a single, homogenous corporate body”? Of course, this assumes you have one and are not just giving us your opinion, again.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fisherman Carl,

An excellent reference!

I had honestly forgotten about that - so here is a link for anyone else that would like to refresh their memories: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/Numbers_16 The commentary is quite good, too.

God bless

Catholics believe Jesus left someone in charge (feed my sheep) so that we wouldn’t have to argue about who was in charge. Like Korah did when he took 250 men against Moses and said, " You have gone too far! For all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them; why then do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?” (Num 16:3).

" The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat; so practice and observe whatever they tell you,…"

• Mt 23:2

 

[Julia_Mae]

In the most literal translation, Matt 16:18 says - "…you are Petros, and upon this petra I will be building of me the “out-called”.

We translate that verb “οiκοδομήσω” as “shall build”, but it’s actually “will be building”… This implies that the thing that will be happening is a process, not an event. It is not a proclamation of the formation of an organization, but a statement of what Jesus will be continually doing.

Second, let’s just go ahead and take out the capital-C “Church”, because it REALLY says “the out-called”. Those that are “called out” by Jesus to be his. It’s not an “organization”, per se, but rather, is a referece to ALL those that are called by Jesus. Any method of “organization” of that group of out-called people is a secondary matter.

Now, the scripture says that Jesus will be building his “group of those called out” on “this petra”.

I found this today in an old article I have on Scripture translation:

Translation always presents a lot of challenges and choices, “Every translator is a liar” being one of the more common aphorisms associated with the process. Translation often appears to the uninitiated as something like finding a color word in one language and substituting the English word r-e-d, as if for every word there is an absolute meaning in every language and you have only to find the corresponding word. Now imagine a translator as far removed from American English as we are from Ancient Greek finding a cache of documents and trying to literally translate the following: Throw a ball, Throw a party, Throw a fit, Throw the game, Throw for home, Throw out, Throw in, Throw over, Throw down. The translator might get so thrown by context, the inevitable result would be to throw up either hands or dinner.

We can’t really just take each word and find all the meanings in one of the Greek dictionaries and then make an English sentence. We argue that way, but it’s really not very useful. In this particular section of Scripture is a construction that is sometimes an “if…then” construction. Now, here’s another paragraph from that same article:

Any professional Scripture scholar is a person of enormous intellect and erudition who has achieved doctoral levels of understanding in multiple disciplines: ancient languages (at least three), archeology, ancient history, linguistics, and general ancient culture which can include everything from weather patterns to building construction (materials and style) to farming to trade practices. In addition, of course, the true scholar must know the beliefs and practices of the various sects of the Hebrew people as well as the beliefs of the surrounding/intermixing cultures. And, as if this is not enough, the scholar also must know the history of all the manuscripts extant and references to the people and writings in the writings and traditions of others through hundreds of years before and after the original documents were written. Any fragment might reveal something important about the history or authenticity of a larger, even apparently far-removed, document.

What we can find out culturally, is that the nickname “Petros” as a rock, connoted stubbornness. Jesus didn’t rename Peter, He just knew Peter’s nickname. Now, if we translate the passage using the if/then, Jesus can be saying “If you are a “rock” then that’s the kind of rock I’m using to build my following.” It’s a kind of joke.

But, did he mean that? Is there an idiomatic element we don’t recognize? Are we sure we even know what words are used or what form as in the original writings there would be no vowels?

Then there is the issue of translating in terms of the whole set of NT writings, so that we can use material from other areas to inform this passage. Jesus knew He would die a physical death and then rise. He knew He would be calling His sheep to Himself. He says in the passage here that Peter knows what he knows “from above.” This is where Jesus will be. Jesus so often said things made no sense until later on or that He had to explain because they were just not getting the message. (Bread? Who cares about bread?! Didn’t I just feed 5000 people? I am talking about the Pharisees adding things to the Law!) (I will raise this temple up in three days.)

You can argue that it makes more sense to believe Jesus was not speaking of any literal church organization, because He so often spoke in metaphors.

I am not personally advocating any specific translation. I just wanted to point out that while these discussions are kind of interesting, arguing over meanings and grammar is not going to get anyone here closer to how Jesus meant to be understood.

 

[aussie_stockman]

tqualey and Mystophilus:

I got both your responses, and OK, my rather long post WAS difficult to “digest”.

So, let me just get right down to brass tacks (now that I myself have discovered what those brass tacks are):

Let’s say that I completely acknowledge that Christ is building His Church (assembly of those called-out) on Peter, in total accord with the Roman Catholic Church Tradition. Let’s say I totally buy into that belief, no holds barred, no reservations at all. And, let’s say I totally buy into that belief BECAUSE I, as a believer in Jesus Christ, want to be a part of that “assembly of those called out”, and that Jesus Himself is building on Peter, as He said He would.

Does that mean that I’m going to have to also believe in stuff like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the ascension of Mary, and that she was “all Holy” and lived a perfect and sinless life? Do I really have to be able to make such prayers as the Salve Regina?

"“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

(I have to be able to cry to MARY, “holy Queen”? Mary is my life, my sweetness and my hope???)

Do I have to believe that Jesus really didn’t have brothers and sisters, and that “holy water” has some special qualities, and that the bread and wine of communion actually become the literal body and blood of Christ, and in the need for infant baptism, based on a belief in the Churchs concept of Original Sin, and - above all - that I can’t have communion with any other of those others that were called out by Jesus until they all equally figure out that the One True Church is the one based on Peter?

Look, I already KNOW I’m NEVER going to be able to go, sit through a Mass, and listen to some Priest go on about how “Mary was sinless” without having the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. And, I’m NEVER going to just cut myself off from having communion with guys I’ve known for 40 years, that came to know Christ just as I did - through a revelation from God Himself.

So, even though I am at a point at which I’m OK with concluding that Peter is/was indeed “the rock” that Jesus would build His church on, I still have to say "who’s kidding who? I’m never going to be able to go along with all this “above-mentioned ‘stuff’”… If this other stuff is “required believing”, then I guess I’m hosed, because I’m never going to believe in it, and would certainly never teach any of it as “fact”.

What possible good does it do me to know that Christ would build His church on Peter, when that Church has adopted so many “beliefs” that I’m never going to go along with?

 

[Julia_Mae]

, and that the bread and wine of communion actually become the literal body and blood of Christ,

You have a discussion of a Scripture that has a lot of possible alternate interpretations and decide that possibly - maybe likely - the RCC interpretation is correct.

But you take the clearest Scripture there is in the NT, the one thing with no possible other translations: THIS IS MY BODY - and that you doubt?

Yeah. It’s the real Body and Blood of Christ. Toss out all the rest - this is the essential point.

 

[aussie_stockman]

You have a discussion of a Scripture that has a lot of possible alternate interpretations and decide that possibly - maybe likely - the RCC interpretation is correct.

But you take the clearest Scripture there is in the NT, the one thing with no possible other translations: THIS IS MY BODY - and that you doubt?

Yeah. It’s the real Body and Blood of Christ. Toss out all the rest - this is the essential point.

Julia -

Believe it or not, Jesus was a Jew. What He and the apostles were doing on the night of the Passover was what Jews always do - they have a Seder.

The bread was called “the bread of affliction” by the Jews, and the wine, called the “cup of redemption” by the Jews.

All Jesus was saying at that Seder (if you know anything at all about a Jewish Seder, which I doubt) was “this bread - which we have eaten since the time of the Exodus - has always been a prophesy pointing to Me. And, likewise, this cup has always been a prophesy, pointing to Me.”

but, you see, I’m not even going to go any further with this. The Catholic notion of the transubstantiation is just flat out SPOOKY to me, and displays a complete and total ignorance of The Passover. So, I’m not even going down this path. The transubstantiation is a doctrine which I will always wholeheartedly reject in it’s entirety.

And, unfortunately, this is one of the reasons I probably can’t become Catholic. It’s not that I don’t believe in Jesus, or that I wasn’t called by Jesus. It’s not that I don’t believe that Peter is “the rock” on which Christ would build His church. It’s stuff like transubstantiation (Edited) that prohibits me from being Catholic.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Julia -

Believe it or not, Jesus was a Jew. .

Try again with less attitude, maybe I’ll read your response…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Interesting.

I know that you have a really good reason for not answering the one question that I asked of you - yet you are quite interested in continuing to ask questions of me an others. So, if you do not want to answer this question:

If you do not believe that Christ built His Church on Peter - which directly leads to the Catholic Church - which church do you think Christ founded?

Would you please tell me your reason for now wanting to answer it?

Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

tqualey and Mystophilus:

I got both your responses, and OK, my rather long post WAS difficult to “digest”.

So, let me just get right down to brass tacks (now that I myself have discovered what those brass tacks are):

Let’s say that I completely acknowledge that Christ is building His Church (assembly of those called-out) on Peter, in total accord with the Roman Catholic Church Tradition. Let’s say I totally buy into that belief, no holds barred, no reservations at all. And, let’s say I totally buy into that belief BECAUSE I, as a believer in Jesus Christ, want to be a part of that “assembly of those called out”, and that Jesus Himself is building on Peter, as He said He would.

Does that mean that I’m going to have to also believe in stuff like the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the ascension of Mary, and that she was “all Holy” and lived a perfect and sinless life? Do I really have to be able to make such prayers as the Salve Regina?

"“Hail, holy Queen, Mother of Mercy! Our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve. To thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping, in this valley of tears. Turn, then, most gracious Advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us; and after this our exile show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary.”

(I have to be able to cry to MARY, “holy Queen”? Mary is my life, my sweetness and my hope???)

Do I have to believe that Jesus really didn’t have brothers and sisters, and that “holy water” has some special qualities, and that the bread and wine of communion actually become the literal body and blood of Christ, and in the need for infant baptism, based on a belief in the Churchs concept of Original Sin, and - above all - that I can’t have communion with any other of those others that were called out by Jesus until they all equally figure out that the One True Church is the one based on Peter?

Look, I already KNOW I’m NEVER going to be able to go, sit through a Mass, and listen to some Priest go on about how “Mary was sinless” without having the hairs stand up on the back of my neck. And, I’m NEVER going to just cut myself off from having communion with guys I’ve known for 40 years, that came to know Christ just as I did - through a revelation from God Himself.

So, even though I am at a point at which I’m OK with concluding that Peter is/was indeed “the rock” that Jesus would build His church on, I still have to say "who’s kidding who? I’m never going to be able to go along with all this “above-mentioned ‘stuff’”… If this other stuff is “required believing”, then I guess I’m hosed, because I’m never going to believe in it, and would certainly never teach any of it as “fact”.

What possible good does it do me to know that Christ would build His church on Peter, when that Church has adopted so many “beliefs” that I’m never going to go along with?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

Looks like you are still into a lot of imaginative posting… and, as usual, without benefit of any source identification. But, let’s just look at one example of how this ‘creativity’ really is just becoming outrageous.

What we can find out culturally, is that the nickname “Petros” as a rock, connoted stubbornness. Jesus didn’t rename Peter, He just knew Peter’s nickname. Now, if we translate the passage using the if/then, Jesus can be saying “If you are a “rock” then that’s the kind of rock I’m using to build my following.” It’s a kind of joke.

But, did he mean that? Is there an idiomatic element we don’t recognize? Are we sure we even know what words are used or what form as in the original writings there would be no vowels?

First of all, how can you possibly know this?

Contrary to your statement, Christ did change Simon’s name to Peter according to John 1:41-42. Here is the link: veritasbible.com/drb/compare/haydock/John_1

So, how you know that Jesus was making a joke in Greek? How do you know this was Simon’s ‘nickname’?

And, now you are wondering if Christ really meant what He said - based on your conjecture about a possible, “… idiomatic element we don’t recognize…” Is is so difficult to stop with these novel interpretations? Another poster recommended that those who read Greek as their primary language in the early Church - and what they said about these concerns you have expressed - would be the best approach.

May I suggest you look at what St. Polycarp had to say. Here is a link: catholicfaithandreason.org/st-polycarp-of-smyrna-69-155-ad.html

God bless

 

[aussie_stockman]

tqualey –

Your question: If you do not believe that Christ built His Church on Peter - which directly leads to the Catholic Church - which church do you think Christ founded?

Well, buddy - that depends on how one defines “church”. If one defines it simply as “the body of believers in Jesus Christ”, then then only answer would be that Christ founded that church… And, in this case, the church wouldn’t be so much an “organization” as an “organizm”. It wouldn’t be Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, or whatever, although there would no doubt be groups like that in the church. Just like in Judaism, where there is no “head of the ‘church’” (as it were), yet there are groups like Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on - or, in more ancient times, they had Pharisees, Sadducees, and so on… But, there was no single “head of Judaism”.

Could be that Christianity is supposed to be that way as well… shrug I mean, it’s not like there’s not a good historic and biblical model for it.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Try again with less attitude, maybe I’ll read your response…

Sincere apologies for the “attitude”… Not sure what got into me… I’m usually not so “brusk” (if thats a correct word for it)

If you don’t mind, though, I’m going to pass on re-stating my earlier post. I know the Catholic position on the “bread and wine”, and I already know there’s no way I’m ever going to be able to go along on that one… Just no point in getting into it…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

Thank you for your answer.

If I understand you correctly, you are not really looking for a specific church, or the Church founded by Christ on Peter, but rather to make a statement that the church is this ‘body of believers’ in Jesus Christ - and, that is what you have found. Is this correct?

God bless

tqualey –

Your question: If you do not believe that Christ built His Church on Peter - which directly leads to the Catholic Church - which church do you think Christ founded?

Well, buddy - that depends on how one defines “church”. If one defines it simply as “the body of believers in Jesus Christ”, then then only answer would be that Christ founded that church… And, in this case, the church wouldn’t be so much an “organization” as an “organizm”. It wouldn’t be Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, or whatever, although there would no doubt be groups like that in the church. Just like in Judaism, where there is no “head of the ‘church’” (as it were), yet there are groups like Reformed, Conservative, Orthodox, and so on - or, in more ancient times, they had Pharisees, Sadducees, and so on… But, there was no single “head of Judaism”.

Could be that Christianity is supposed to be that way as well… shrug I mean, it’s not like there’s not a good historic and biblical model for it.

 

[aussie_stockman]

Hi, Aussie,

Thank you for your answer.

If I understand you correctly, you are not really looking for a specific church, or the Church founded by Christ on Peter, but rather to make a statement that the church is this ‘body of believers’ in Jesus Christ - and, that is what you have found. Is this correct?

God bless

Hey, tqualy —

Which post are you referring to? I’m confused…

But, in any case, I think (hope) I’ve been very clear that I’ve been looking into Catholicism (which, of course, includes the understanding that it is built on Peter)

Your question, honestly, has been a bit of another direction than where I’ve been going. I wanted to avoid it simply because I wanted to stay focused on the discussion regarding the Catholic Church…

So, I’m hoping to hear from you regarding my earlier post, which (basically) was asking “if I become Catholic, does that mean I have to believe in [this list] of things?”

 

[Julia_Mae]

Sincere apologies for the “attitude”… Not sure what got into me… I’m usually not so “brusk” (if thats a correct word for it).

I believe it’s “brusque.”

I think “condescending” was what I had in mind, tho.’

Suit yourself.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Aussie,

I’ll do my best to answer your question(s). But, please understand there is a bit more involved here.

Hey, tqualy —

Which post are you referring to? I’m confused…

But, in any case, I think (hope) I’ve been very clear that I’ve been looking into Catholicism (which, of course, includes the understanding that it is built on Peter)

Your question, honestly, has been a bit of another direction than where I’ve been going. I wanted to avoid it simply because I wanted to stay focused on the discussion regarding the Catholic Church…

So, I’m hoping to hear from you regarding my earlier post, which (basically) was asking “if I become Catholic, does that mean I have to believe in [this list] of things?”

As I see it, you have really not only made up your mind on how you will respond to Christ, but what you will and will not believe. The problem with this approach is that the Scripture DOES NOT say anything about about us telling God what we will or will not do - AND - making it stick.

While you say you do not have any problem accepting Christ founding His Church on Peter - I submit that you have many significant problems with the implications of this statement. A very real issue is that Christ is God and what He says goes - right? Well, I guess not!! You see, Christ gave the keys to Peter (Matt 16) - a symbol of his aurhority over the other Apostles (a number of folks do not believe that) and then He told Peter that WHATEVER he bound on earth was bound in Heaven. Later on (John 14,15 &16) Christ promised that His Church would be guided by the Holy Spirit so that it can not teach error. (John 14:26, John 15:26, and John 16:13 )

And this is where we run into our first conflict. You say you believe in Christ - but, you apparently don’t believe He really gave Peter the authority to bind whatever he wanted to bind - and it would be honored in Heaven. Christ told the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would keep His Church from teaching error, but you apparently believe His Church has made several major errors - some concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary.

So, you tell me how we are to proceed, because I am at a loss. As far as I know, Christ does demand that we follow His commands and love our neighbor. Christ addressed those who appeared content to say, “Lord, Lord” thinking they were OK - but doing nothing else. Then came the surprise ending (Matthew 7:21, Luke 6:46).

If I understand you correctly, the issues you have with some doctrinal aspects of the Catholic Church are really secondary. Yet, when you say that you refuse to believe something - because you will not believe - there really isn’t anything that anyone can say or do until you become more willing to open your heart to another way of looking at things.

Notice, I do not engage you with nuiances in Greek or in efforts to claim that clearly written Scripture says something that it clearly doesn’t. There is no slight of hand with my of my statements.

God bless

Matthew 7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter …

bible.cc/matthew/7-21.htm

Lord!’ will enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Only those who actually do the will of my Father in heaven will enter. … King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.) … Not every one that says unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he …

Luke 6:46 "Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?

bible.cc/luke/6-46.htm

And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? Douay-Rheims Bible And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Julia Mae,

What a unique way to accept an apology.

God bless

I believe it’s “brusque.”

I think “condescending” was what I had in mind, tho.’

Suit yourself.

 

[Mystophilus]

Or someone not understanding more complex elements of translation.

That also is true. Translation is not something for which I have ever had much time.

 

[Mystophilus]

So, even though I am at a point at which I’m OK with concluding that Peter is/was indeed “the rock” that Jesus would build His church on, I still have to say "who’s kidding who? I’m never going to be able to go along with all this “above-mentioned ‘stuff’”… If this other stuff is “required believing”, then I guess I’m hosed, because I’m never going to believe in it, and would certainly never teach any of it as “fact”.

What possible good does it do me to know that Christ would build His church on Peter, when that Church has adopted so many “beliefs” that I’m never going to go along with?

I ought to start by suggesting that this question could well be better located somewhere like Ask An Apologist. Admittedly, tqualey does a very good job of being one, but I do not; I only came here because of the tendency of this question to draw out misrepresentations, both anti-Catholic and pro-Catholic, of the Greek.

I would, however, like to point out something which I consider rather important in regard to your question: the Orthodox understand Mt 16:18, and a few Protestants understand Mt 16:18, and yet we remain not Catholic. Should you find that you cannot become Catholic, and Catholic canon law actually acknowledges such a possibility, it remains nonetheless possible to acknowledge what the text does say in the original tongue and to be a part of a faith community who do so.

I pray that you will find where God wants you to be.