The Rock upon which the Church was build

[reluctant_saint]

So I was reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church and I came across this statement.

Moved by the gift of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church. CCC 424

What do you make of this statement? The next time a Protestant starts talking about the difference between petros and petra, do you think that as Catholics we can actually agree with them, as this paragraph suggests?

Don’t get me wrong. The Church is “built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief corner stone.” (Eph. 2:20) Simon’s names was changed into Peter precisely to show his role in this foundation. Even if Christ was referring to him as a less than massive rock (as “petra” would imply), he was still calling him a rock. Indeed, Simon is the only person in the New Testament to have his named changed by God. That’s no slight matter.

 

[jpjd]

Indeed, Simon is the only person in the New Testament to have his named changed by God. That’s no slight matter.

Well, don’t forget Saul became Paul. This name change wasn’t expressly given by God, but it was inspired by Paul’s change of heart from being a persecutor of Christians to being an apostle to the Gentiles.

As far as agreeing with the Protestants, remember Catholicism is the one true Church. Protestants need to agree with us, not vice versa!

 

[reluctant_saint]

Well, don’t forget Saul became Paul. This name change wasn’t expressly given by God, but it was inspired by Paul’s change of heart from being a persecutor of Christians to being an apostle to the Gentiles.

This is not the case. Paul was both a Jew and a Roman. His Jewish name was Saul and his Roman name was Paul. However, since he became an Apostle to the Gentiles, he stopped using his Jewish name and stuck with his Roman name. I recently learned about this while listening to Steve Ray on Catholic Answers Live.

 

[reluctant_saint]

As far as agreeing with the Protestants, remember Catholicism is the one true Church. Protestants need to agree with us, not vice versa!

Well, in a sense, we said it first anyway. If we agree with them, it’s only because they agreed with us.

 

[YADA]

Saul and Paul are [as I understand the name] really the same just that one is the Roman version and one the Jewish. Like John [english] and Juan [Hispanic] and Jon [another variation]

or Helen and Elaine, these are the “same” name…

Also, in the OT, only God was refered to as a rock, not any person…Simon was the first record of a person being referred to as a rock.

God was many times refered to as a rock and of course as mentioned Jesus is the Rock!!!

Peter is another Rock - as appointed by Jesus - the Rock upon which the Church of Jesus is built - by Jesus!!!

 

[Afterburned6387]

Well, let me make sure I have the story right.

1. Sometime after Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter became prince of the apostles
2. He then went about on a missionary journey which he ended in Rome
3. There he founded a church, and became its Bishop
4. From this bishopric, he was the authority over all Christians in place of Christ
5. One day, he made the Roman Authorities angry, so he was crucified upside down in Nero’s Circus.
6. The Papacy was then passed on to Linus, his successor, and that goes some 260-some-odd people all the way down the the current Pope.

Now, as far as I can find in church histories, among both oral traditions and written histories, the only thing we can really know for sure (and even this comes only from legend) is number 5. Everything else, so far as I can find, might of well been fabricated, as there is neither written record, nor spoken story of any of this until sometime after 300AD.

In order for the Roman Catholic Teaching Authority to be valid, along with their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to be valid, Peter HAD to have had a papacy, but most of the information on his papacy is at best legend and hearsay, and at worst complete fiction.

We do not even know for certain whether or not Peter spent his last days in Rome, all we know (or think we know) was that he died there. Remember, St. Ignatius of Antioch was dragged all the way from ASIA MINOR to be fed to lions in Rome.

I have poured over church documents, church histories, asked church history professors, and even read Catholic apologetic articles trying to get around this glaring lack of evidence, but I find little substantiation, and all the apologetics on the subject side-step the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A PAPACY OF PETER.

Furthermore, why is Romans such a broad overview of the faith if the Roman church had Peter, i.e. the POPE there to explain to them the very basic concepts presented in Romans? Why isn’t the Papacy mentioned, or at least Peter’s bishopric mentioned in either of his epistles? Why does Peter call Jesus the “Living Stone” and the “Cornerstone” of the Church, upon which we are built as living stones, if Peter himself is the Rock of the church?(Peter chapter 2)

The early church had widely varied theology, and even basic ideas of how justification and baptism worked were still being sorted out, yet NEVER did the church in Rome, or any other body of believers reject the teachings of other churches as “heretical.” (Case in point, read about the beliefs of the early North African church, they believed that if you committed any sin after baptism, you were condemned to hell unless you were martyred)

The Catholic Church, despite all the catholic denials of this fact, was created in its present form by Constantine to consolidate a then-crumbling empire. It incorporated enough “Mithrism” in order to appeal to the other major religion of the time to unify the Roman Empire. It had as its Pontifex Maximus Constantine himself, but then when Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople, there was a power vacuum in Rome which the Roman bishop at the time was all too willing to fill. This, is the foundation of the Catholic Church, not Peter.

That said, if salvation is Sola Fide, as Romans 1:16-17 seem to indicate by saying that in our faith there is a “righteousness that is BY FAITH from FIRST to LAST,” we can be confident we will see many Catholics at heaven, and we can all poke fun at them then for all the other silliness they went through on earth.

 

[YADA]

1. Sometime after Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter became prince of the apostles and 4. From this bishopric, he was the authority over all Christians in place of Christ

No Peter became the ‘rock’ upon ehich the Church woulld be built before Jesus went to Jerusalem to be crucified [Matt 16]. Read also Isaiah 22 for context.

1. He then went about on a missionary journey which he ended in Rome 3. There he founded a church, and became its Bishop and 5. One day, he made the Roman Authorities angry, so he was crucified upside down in Nero’s Circus.

Archealogy findings, ealry church father writings [even from before 300 AD], most scholars [of various religious persuasions] agree that Peter was in Rome, was a Bishop and was martyred there.

1. The Papacy was then passed on to Linus, his successor, and that goes some 260-some-odd people all the way down the the current Pope.

Now, as far as I can find in church histories, among both oral traditions and written histories, the only thing we can really know for sure (and even this comes only from legend) is number 5. Everything else, so far as I can find, might of well been fabricated, as there is neither written record, nor spoken story of any of this until sometime after 300AD.

You need to read more early Christian writings; try The Writings of the Early Church Fathers - 3 Volumes by Jurgens…a good addition to your personal library…

 

[PinoyCatholic]

Well, let me make sure I have the story right.

1. Sometime after Jesus ascended to heaven, Peter became prince of the apostles
2. He then went about on a missionary journey which he ended in Rome
3. There he founded a church, and became its Bishop
4. From this bishopric, he was the authority over all Christians in place of Christ
5. One day, he made the Roman Authorities angry, so he was crucified upside down in Nero’s Circus.
6. The Papacy was then passed on to Linus, his successor, and that goes some 260-some-odd people all the way down the the current Pope.

Now, as far as I can find in church histories, among both oral traditions and written histories, the only thing we can really know for sure (and even this comes only from legend) is number 5. Everything else, so far as I can find, might of well been fabricated, as there is neither written record, nor spoken story of any of this until sometime after 300AD.

In order for the Roman Catholic Teaching Authority to be valid, along with their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 to be valid, Peter HAD to have had a papacy, but most of the information on his papacy is at best legend and hearsay, and at worst complete fiction.

We do not even know for certain whether or not Peter spent his last days in Rome, all we know (or think we know) was that he died there. Remember, St. Ignatius of Antioch was dragged all the way from ASIA MINOR to be fed to lions in Rome.

I have poured over church documents, church histories, asked church history professors, and even read Catholic apologetic articles trying to get around this glaring lack of evidence, but I find little substantiation, and all the apologetics on the subject side-step the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A PAPACY OF PETER.

Furthermore, why is Romans such a broad overview of the faith if the Roman church had Peter, i.e. the POPE there to explain to them the very basic concepts presented in Romans? Why isn’t the Papacy mentioned, or at least Peter’s bishopric mentioned in either of his epistles? Why does Peter call Jesus the “Living Stone” and the “Cornerstone” of the Church, upon which we are built as living stones, if Peter himself is the Rock of the church?(Peter chapter 2)

The early church had widely varied theology, and even basic ideas of how justification and baptism worked were still being sorted out, yet NEVER did the church in Rome, or any other body of believers reject the teachings of other churches as “heretical.” (Case in point, read about the beliefs of the early North African church, they believed that if you committed any sin after baptism, you were condemned to hell unless you were martyred)

The Catholic Church, despite all the catholic denials of this fact, was created in its present form by Constantine to consolidate a then-crumbling empire. It incorporated enough “Mithrism” in order to appeal to the other major religion of the time to unify the Roman Empire. It had as its Pontifex Maximus Constantine himself, but then when Constantine moved his capital to Constantinople, there was a power vacuum in Rome which the Roman bishop at the time was all too willing to fill. This, is the foundation of the Catholic Church, not Peter.

That said, if salvation is Sola Fide, as Romans 1:16-17 seem to indicate by saying that in our faith there is a “righteousness that is BY FAITH from FIRST to LAST,” we can be confident we will see many Catholics at heaven, and we can all poke fun at them then for all the other silliness they went through on earth.

Pretty words. Too bad history doesn’t support you. No evidence? Or no evidence that you’re willing to consider because you value YOUR opinion more than the truth?

Read “Four Witnesses” by Rod Bennett. After that go on to the source documents like the writings of the early church fathers.

Poking fun at Catholics? Not a very Christian attitude. Practice what you preach my friend.

 

[reluctant_saint]

Afterburned6387,

At present, I have all the loving affection for you as a child has for his teddy bear. All cute and cuddly, but all full of fluff. Why must you spoil all our fun? It would be nice if you would address the issue I made, but you come barging in with all this hype that I believe was well suited for another thread.

The point of my post was to show precisely that Peter was not the rock on which the Church was built. The Catholic Church itself has said that it was the faith, confessed by Peter, on which the Church was build. I figured you would agree with that.

What you have is a bad case of neurosis, my friend. Every time you hear the words Peter and Rock in the same sentence, you launch into a rage. Perhaps a change in diet may help. I suggest you ingest a good deal of self control and discipline every day. Try to get a little more sympathy in your diet. Perhaps a good helping of congeniality every now and then would help.

As for the Church Fathers, there is another current thread discussing the papacy and the church fathers. I suggest you look there for a avenue to release your frustration.

God bless you all the same.

 

[Charlie_Zeaiter]

… there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A PAPACY OF PETER…

Hi Afterburned6387…

I don’t know if there is any evidence or not, but the Papacy may be a fulfillment of prophecy (see Isaiah 22:22). This maybe-prophecy has been discussed and it is quite interesting.

Here’s more info, if your interested:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2486934#post2486934
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2422185#post2422185
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=2367500#post2367500
users.binary.net/polycarp/popes.html

 

[Afterburned6387]

I must point out, none of those replies give any proof of anything conflicting what I said. Once again, yes, peter probably was crucified in rome, but that in no way indicates a bishopric. Give me some source documents. No catholic I’ve spoken to, or even www.catholic.com has been able to provide any.

As for Isaiah 22:22, I think Catholics need to understand that the “binding and loosing” “authority” has nothing to do with Authority and everything to do with Teaching. The bible is fraught with legal terms. Binding and Loosing, a rabbinical and legal term in Judea, meant that whatever a teacher or a court decided was decided because it was already that way in heaven, not because heaven responded to their decrees.

The entire legal system among the Jews was centered around finding God’s judgment, not in exercising an authority given to them by God.

Also, if we read on in Isaiah:

I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

“In that day,” declares the LORD Almighty, “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” The LORD has spoken.

Isaiah 22:25

So, if it is a papal prophecy, all the glory hanging on the Pope will be destroyed…not very happy.

Whoever this Peg is, it doesn’t seem like its a good thing…

 

[reluctant_saint]

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has it’s source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.

Cyprian of Carthage
Letter to Cornelius of Rome A.D. 252

There you go Afterburned. But I suppose you’ll want more. Oh how you spoil my fun.

 

[YADA]

Isaiah 22 is not a rabbinic ‘teaching authority’ it is the Prime Minister who has a delegated authority from the King [specifically the Davidic Kingdom - and here we are in Isaiah many years adn many kings past David]. This Prime Minister is so authoritatively that what he decides [closes or opens] remains decided [clsoed or opened] as if it was decided by the King.

Also, this is a position of delegation by the King but one that is ultimatly accountable to God…he removes the evil prime minister and puts in place the sure peg. But any person who holds this office will e held accountable for how they exercise their authority. They are on notice that they will be removed for malfescience [sp? I am tired - looks wrong but…]

Notice that we refer to our Bishops as FATHER

In Isaiah how do the people call the Prime Minister? They call him Abba, Abbot, Papa, Pater, Father, Dad, Daddy, Bishop, Patriarch and Pope are all words that refer to an authority role, that is fatherly and have a common root and meaning.

This in no ways contradicts the teaching of the Church. The Pope is accountable to God for hei stewardship of the Church and for as Jesus instructed Peter…how he feeds the flock of Christ. He is protected from teaching error in faith and morals. This protection for the Church can be manefested in a variety of ways. The Pope could be inspired by and respond faithfully to the Holy Spirit. If the Pope is determined to act contrary to the desires of God, he might ‘remove him’…then another will be selected to take his place…It is an office after all…positions are filled whenever they become vacant…read in Acts about the selection of the replacement for Judas…

Jesus is the Davidic King…The Twelve Apostles - the Twelve Tribes…etc.

 

[DJim]

Afterburned–

You have yet to show me from Scripture how we know apostolic authority no longer exists in the Church.

I asked for that a looong time ago…

Now you’re posting here, stirring up debate with the unsubstantiated rhetoric about the papacy?

Let’s get things started on the right foot–just show where “the sole and final authority”–Scripture–makes it clear that, for us, apostolic authority is a thing of the past…

If you can do that, then the origin of the papacy is moot.

If you can’t do that, well, then, you would seem to have a rather huge problem…

DJim

 

[DJim]

What do you make of this statement? The next time a Protestant starts talking about the difference between petros and petra, do you think that as Catholics we can actually agree with them, as this paragraph suggests?

YUP. And I would go further in agreeing with the Protestants:

I think it’s safe to claim that, in keeping with Jewish practice of re-naming someone as a sign of a “destiny change” for that person, that the term “petra” actually signifies the destiny change of “Petros”–that because of the God-illuminated profession of faith that Simon makes, his destiny is transformed from mere petros into the “large rock” (petra) upon which Jesus will build His Church.

It’s also very telling that Simon is the first person ever recorded to bear the name of “Petros”–very telling that a name usually reserved by the Jews for God (rock) is given to the one whom God the Son calls to be His Vicar, his “stand-in.”

Also also, , it’s very “punny” that the Aramaic “Kephas” is a virtual homonym for the Greek “kephale”–which means head.

DJim

 

[TarlsQtr]

27 of the first 30 Popes were killed by the Romans.

It seems that someone knew who was the head of the early Christian Church.

 

[DJim]

For Afterburned:

“I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant.”

Ignatius writing the Romans, ca. 107 AD.

Apparently both Peter and Paul were issuing commandments to the Romans.

I recall Paul writing a letter to the Romans.

I don’t recall anyone ever saying Peter wrote a letter to the Romans.

How did Peter, then, issue commands to the Romans?

DJim

PS–after this question is answered, then we can talk about Clement of Rome, who wrote about a decade earlier than this…

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Afterburned6387:

1. One day, he made the Roman Authorities angry, so he was crucified upside down in Nero’s Circus. Now, as far as **I **can find in church histories, among both oral traditions and written histories, the only thing we can really know for sure (and even this comes only from legend) is number 5.

Afterburned6387:

I have poured over church documents, church histories, asked church history professors, and even read Catholic apologetic articles trying to get around this glaring lack of evidence, but I find little substantiation, and all the apologetics on the subject side-step the fact that there is NO EVIDENCE FOR A PAPACY OF PETER.

I love noticing elephants in the room. This one of course is the old look at my left hand claiming all due scholarship while my right hand writes apologetics for unsubstantiated opinion elephant.

The sleight of hand here is that you have claimed to have done exhaustive study without once having systematically set out what your exhaustive study has uncovered. I see no quotes, no references, no links.

Really, guy, a lot of us here on CAF were not born yesterday. To get our hearts pumping, you are going to have to do a lot better than this. Just a thought.

:coffeeread:

Thanks for the elephant! And it is ‘pored’ over btw not ‘poured’ over.