This is why Peter isnt the rock.Its christREAD

[exodus]

RyanL:

You’re right, the Early Church Fathers (ECF) are not writing scripture. Keep in mind, however, that it’s these same people on whom you rely to have recognized ACTUAL scripture for what it was, and compiled it as our Bible. Without these same people, you would not have a Bible. Do you agree? If so, you might want to listen to what they have to say. If not, please explain WHO exactly compiled scriptures into a Bible (and don’t cop out by saying “The Holy Spirit” - we acknowledge His work in this, but we also acknowledge that the Bible wasn’t handed down from heaven’ MEN were involved).

You acknowledge, I assume, that Peter was not the first called to be an Apostle - it was his brother Andrew, who went and brought Peter to Christ. Yet, in all of the lists of Apostles, Peter comes first (and Judas last - for obvious reasons which again have nothing to do with chronology). In fact, Peter is mentioned ~190 times in the NT (as Simon, Peter, or Cephas). The next most mentioned Apostle is John (the Apostle who Christ loved), at ~40 times. Why? You have to answer this if you would deny the Petrine Primacy. Why would John wait at Jesus’ tomb for Peter to get there before he would go in? Why, in Acts 15, would everyone shut up when Peter speaks? Why, in Acts 15, would James say “THEREFORE” it is his judgement? When reading scripture, if you see a “therefore”, you have to ask what it’s there for. “Therefore” means “because of what was just said”. What was just said? Peter just infallibly pronounced something on a matter of faith and morals, which is never contradicted throughout the rest of scripture. What happens to James’ pronouncements? Contradicted by Paul, with no hesitation. Peter was at the helm.

Who walked on water? Christ, of course, but Peter as well. Anyone else? Nope. When Peter started to sink, did Christ let him? Nope. Who paid tax for Christ? Peter, who paid one shekel for the both of them. Who miraculously caught 153 fish, and was told to become a fisher of men? Peter. Who was empowered with superhuman strength to pull them ashore (which you’ll realize WAS superhuman if you’ve ever held up a stringer of even 10 fish)? Peter. Who receives enlightenment FROM THE HOLY SPIRIT to proclaim Christ the Son of God? Peter. Any reason to suspect the Holy Spirit couldn’t do it again? Nope. Who’s boat does Jesus get into to preach? Peter’s. Who, besides Christ, Moses, and Elija, speaks at the Transfiguration? Peter. Who does Jesus tell to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep,”? Peter. Anyone else? Nope. Who entered the upper room first after the ascention? Peter. Who declares the first anathemas in Acts 5? Peter. Who’s shadow has the power to heal, something not recorded for anyone else in scripture? Peter.

Do you see a trend? Do I need to go on? I ask that you prayerfully reflect on these truths and ask why, exactly, it is that you despise authority.

May the Holy Spirit guide you in your pursuit of truth.

RyanL

Does any of this prove Peter is pope, no. There were many things that Paul did, and the others didn’t. Same with John(the only one to see Christ the way he did in Revelation). You’re making a case with thin air. Also being listed first in the Bible usually means you are the pope?, no it means you are the oldest. Remember we are talking about Jews. The biggest proof for primacy would be if Peter and the popes(down through the centuries) taught the same things. Where is Peter speaking about the “real presence”, Mary, purgatory, etc???

 

[Little_Mary]

Ignatius:

Looks like seetiger33 is nothing but a hit and run poster.

It seems that posts like these only cause us to study and learn more about our own faith and consequently strengthen it. I guess God knew what He was doing when He made hit-and-run posters!

Thanks seetiger33. Come back anytime!!

 

[TNT]

eleusis:

My fellow Catholics,
I have had to handle a hardened evangelical protestant at work for the last year. We have gone round and round for the entire time. They don’t care about history because they believe that the Catholics, with Constantine and the other Emperors help, rewrote history to our benefit and so cannot be trusted. They really and deeply believe that when Jesus began his Church only a remanent survived to suddenly burst forth on the scene during or after the protestant reformation and that the Catholics were a sect of pagans created by the devil to fool the faithful. The hardened ones believe this. So please, present the truth and move on, don’t do what I did and spend nights and weekends pouring over books and magazines to be able to properly present Catholic views to a supposedly inquisitive mind because few care. All they care to do is feed their ego by engaging in non-productive arguments that only serve to wound the Church further. They sit with their little anti-catholic bible tracts and refute any and every argument and feel satisfied they are doing the work of God. Let them go.

AMEN!

You are dead on.
There is NOT ONE of them that will explain honestly how and when Hebrews was made a part of the NT. Nor can they prove that it was taught as inspired Scripture in 200ad.
There is NOT ONE of them that will explain honestly WHY we have exactly 27 NT books and not 25,26 or 28 or 29.
To deny the pope as Peter’s valid successor as head of the Church is to deny the constitution of the NT.
And, THAT is their contradiction so they must hide from it.
They are neither fed nor ruled by Peter through his successors as our Lord commanded. Therefore, they are lost sheep.

But for those on this Forum that have an inquiring mind, they may read this thread which has excellent rebuttals to liberal protestantism.

 

[TNT]

exodus:

Got it wrong my friend, … The church is the body of Christ(not the church of Christ denomination), its invisible, not visible. Christ has always been the head, and he doesn’t share that

Matt 18: 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: tell the INVISIBLE church. And if he will not hear the **INVISIBLE ** church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Makes complete sense to me ! :whacky:

 

[mercygate]

Little Mary:

It seems that posts like these only cause us to study and learn more about our own faith and consequently strengthen it. I guess God knew what He was doing when He made hit-and-run posters! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

Thanks seetiger33. Come back anytime!! http://forum.catholic.com/images/smilies/thumbsup.gif

Did anybody notice at the inauguration Mass of Pope Benedict XVI this morning that the pallium was left overnight at the tomb of Peter, and that the whole sub-liturgy surrounding that ritual invoked the FAITH of Peter as the foundation of the Church? The whole “faith of Peter” versus Peter himself is an artifact of the post-Reformation age. Protestants must derogate the person of Peter because they have left his boat! So for them, the rock must be separated from Peter the Apostle because they have abandoned the apostle. Can Peter’s faith exist apart from Peter?

Whose boat does Jesus teach from?

Lk. 5:3 Getting into one of the boats, which was Simon’s, he asked him to put out a little from the land. And he sat down and taught the peoplefrom the boat.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

TNT:

Matt 18: 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: **tell the INVISIBLE **church. And if he will not hear the **INVISIBLE ** church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Makes complete sense to me ! :whacky:

Right on. I can’t think of a single covenant action in Scripture that is meant to be taken abstractly. There is always a this-world manifestation. More evidence that the anti-Catholic polemic is just a bunch of hypotheticals.

Scott

 

[TNT]

exodus:

You still have not produced one verse to say that Peter or anyone else thought he was pope, supreme pontiff, etc.

Are you saying Church writers thought their writings were “God-breated”?

1. ARE YOU “God-breated”? If not then WHY must we abide by YOUR interpretations as to the correct meaning of Catholic Scripture??
2. Are you infallible in your teaching as to the meaning of Scripture? Yes or No, please.

Ok, see my post above as well, that was easy.Don’t see any verses still, is that because there are none?

Since you didn’t give any Scripture reference, I must only assume you mean your one and only proof text of Peter’s primacy…Matt 16. Let’s read it shall we…

Jn21: 15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. Jn 21: 16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. 17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep. 18 Amen, amen I say to thee, when thou wast younger, thou didst gird thyself, and didst walk where thou wouldst. But when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and lead thee whither thou wouldst not. 19 And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God. And when he had said this, he saith to him: Follow me.

Jn 21: 17 “Feed my sheep”… Our Lord had promised the spiritual supremacy to St. Peter; St. Matt. 16. 19; and here he fulfils that promise, by charging him with the superintendency of all his sheep, without exception; and consequently of his whole flock, that is, of his own church.
3. So, if you are a lamb or sheep, HOW are you being fed today BY PETER?
Is it 2 short essays by Peter, which you cannot prove were his in the first place and some verses in ACTS?
4. Is the Bible a faithful witness to the already existing Church or is the Church created by the Bible?
5. Are all teachings of the Church of Christ in the Bible ? If so, where does it say that?

 

[mercygate]

eleusis:

My fellow Catholics,
. . . So please, present the truth and move on, don’t do what I did and spend nights and weekends pouring over books and magazines to be able to properly present Catholic views . . .

But I’ll bet you got a great education! I know the Lord has used challenges from red-eyed anti-Catholics to teach ME the faith better, to teach me to engage such interlocutors with more patience and simplicity. Who knows? The Lord may have been preparing you to sow the seed better soil sometime in the future. Or maybe, even with this guy, the fruit may ripen after he is certain of never seeing you again. Pride dies a slow, hard death.

 

[mercygate]

exodus:

When was the last time a pope served instead of being served? If I’m a faithful Catholic will the pope serve me? Will he lay down his life for me like Christ did?

A biography of Pope John Paul the Great should give you the answers to these questions. His life was nothing other than a life of service – not just to Catholics but to the entire Christian (and non-Christian) world. I don’t suppose you meant “serve me” to mean bringing you your slippers and your pipe. He certainly did lay down his life for Christ and for the Church – which means for every one of us who calls upon the name of Jesus. The cross has many shapes, custom tailored individually to each one of us. John Paul’s was in the shape of a key.

Is he part of the trinity like the Holy Spirit(which is the vicar in my interpretation)? Since the pope is not part of the trinity, how could he be a vicar for Christ?

The Holy Spirit is a full member of the Godhead. He cannot be a vicar or “stand-in” because he is God.

 

[SusanL]

Mickey:

Don’t expect seetiger to respond to any of this. He looks like a
post -and -runner.

I know that there have been a few posters commenting on Seetiger “posting and running.”

Think about it. If you were given new arguments that you weren’t prepared for, wouldn’t you want to think about it and perhaps research it a bit? Give him/her the benefit of the doubt. I think that it’s wonderful that he/she is still lurking around.

I know that we’re all more than a little tired of anti-Catholic threads and posts appearing because of all the commotion with Pope JPII and Pope Benedict but we can’t just view this as a chance to beat them back down. Anti-Catholic posters have been signing on recently (seemingly in droves) and are now meeting informed Catholics possibly for the first time. We have to just grit our teeth (because of all the nastiness) and demonstrate to them how real Catholics behave. Some would just love to see us get snarky so that they can report back on how “unchristian” we really are.

It’s hard for me, too, to see all of the anti-Catholic threads/posts going on but I’m going to print off the arguments and learn from them.

Kudos to all of you learned Catholic apologists out there!!! I love ya!!

 

[bones_IV]

exodus:

You still have not produced one verse to say that Peter or anyone else thought he was pope, supreme pontiff, etc.

Are you saying Church writers thought their writings were “God-breated”? They are long dead, you disagree, they accepted the Scripture and did not add to it. Hence the warning in Rev 22. I can have the same debate with charasmatics, if it is inspired writings why not write it into one volume as the true Holy Scritpures, and complete the Word of God.

Peter did deny Christ, and Christ gave him the opportunity to be restored. Not to hajack the thread, but wouldn’t this be a good proof text for “once saved always saved”. I don’t see Jesus saying Peter is in danger of hell after denying him, or that Peter is saved again.

You are the first one I’ve seen to post this. Wouldn’t the supreme pontiff go straight to God for confession? Are you saying the “keys” work on everyone else but himself???

There is historical tradition of the deaths but the Bible does not record it. If Jesus made Peter the “rock” and intended it to be passed on, surely the Bible would have recorded that little detail in detail(pun intended, but seriously). John was alive until the late 90’s of the first century yet he writes nothing about or to Peter or a successor to Peter. The best source of authority for the Catholic church is strangely quiet.

Ok, see my post above as well, that was easy.Don’t see any verses still, is that because there are none?

The Holy Spirit specifically guided the NT writers into writing down what was “God-breathed” into “all truth”. After Revelation was finished, the truth was complete. If you don’t think so, why not add all the “inspired” writings to the Word of God?

Since you didn’t give any Scripture reference, I must only assume you mean your one and only proof text of Peter’s primacy…Matt 16. Let’s read it shall we…

Cont.

God defines things in unofficial terms.

 

[mercygate]

exodus:

You still have not produced one verse to y that Peter or anyone else thought he was pope, supreme pontiff, etc.

There does not need to be a specific verse of scripture containing the word “pope.” Petrine primacy is clearly laid out in Scripture, as others have shown with abundant citations. The word “pope” comes later, and as you probably know, is an affectionate term meaning just what it sounds like in Italian: Papa. Supreme pontiff was one of the titles accrued during a later period and neither adds nor detracts from the issue. Your struggle is with form versus substance. You do not see the form you wish to see, therefore you reject the substance. The apostolic succession is indicated in Acts 1:26 when Matthias is “enrolled among the Apostles,” and since the continuity of the faith requires just that – continuity – the passing on of the apostolic charism of Peter is similarly passed on through the Bishop of Rome.

. . . .
There is historical tradition of the deaths but the Bible does not record it. If Jesus made Peter the “rock” and intended it to be passed on, surely the Bible would have recorded that little detail in detail(pun intended, but seriously). John was alive until the late 90’s of the first century yet he writes nothing about or to Peter or a successor to Peter. The best source of authority for the Catholic church is strangely quiet. . . . . Since you didn’t give any Scripture reference, I must only assume you mean your one and only proof text of Peter’s primacy…Matt 16. Let’s read it shall we…

The citations given by Church Militant show the breadth of Scriptural support for Peter’s special position. BTW, Clement of Rome, the fourth Pope, writing before the death of John, interposes to resolve a conflict outside of the Roman see; the pattern is forming. By the time of Ignatius (writing ca 107 A.D.), Rome is seen as focal, and Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in about 185, states that to know the true faith one needs look only to the See or Rome which has never been tainted by heresy.

 

[RyanL]

exodus,

please read the following and let me know how you interpret these verses. also, please let me know if Jesus wasn’t aware of them when he spoke Matt 16:18.

deuteronomy 17:18-20
isiah 22:22

God bless,
RyanL

 

[Huiou_Theou]

Εχ`οδος!

We all know that more controversy has swirled around this verse than almost any other verse in the Gospel. The question is, “Who or what is the rock?” Part of the problem arises from the fact that the Greek words for Peter and for rock are similar, but the meanings are different. The first, petros, means a stone or loose rock; the second, petra, means rock, such as a rocky ledge. So what Jesus really said was “ … you are Peter (stone), and on this rock I will build My church.” He did not say He would build His church on a stone but on a rock.

Where do you get your ‘fact’ that πετρος means stone (e.g. little stone) and πετραι means ‘rocky ledge’?
I have been studying this question, and I think your explanation is ill informed.

Greek made easy.

You already admit that Peter was the eldest, do you not know that the eldest was the ruler of all? Jesus was king, son of David.

 

[exodus]

bones_IV:

God defines things in unofficial terms.

God defined everything we need to know in this life in 66 books we call the Bible. You and I both agree it is authentic, God-breathed, and the Word of God. What unofficial terms are you talking about?, where did God do this? I remember God laying things down very clear even before Moses wrote the first book of the Bible. i.e.(Adam and Eve were told not to eat the fruit of the tree of good and evil, and what would happen to them if they did).

 

[exodus]

TNT:

Matt 18: 16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand. 17 And if he will not hear them: **tell the INVISIBLE **church. And if he will not hear the **INVISIBLE **church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

Makes complete sense to me ! :whacky:

Can you see who are believers and who are not by looking at them? Can you know a person’s heart like Jesus did? No, the church(body of Christ) is not a building, not a religion, it is as Paul put it the body of Christ. This body is not visible in a single religion, but in all who have put their faith in Christ, and are written in the Lamb’s book of life(Revelation). Also the church in those verses is not the Catholic church based out of rome, but the universal one that is made up of all true believers.

 

[RyanL]

edit -

the above verse SHOULD read deuteronomy 17:8-13. Sorry for any confusion.

RyanL

 

[exodus]

RyanL:

edit -

the above verse SHOULD read deuteronomy 17:13-17. Sorry for any confusion.

RyanL

Thanks RyanL,

I’ll look at that as soon as I can. May I ask you how you see Matt 20? This is shortly after Christ calls Peter the “rock”(in Catholic interpretation) and gives him the “keys”(supreme power over the church-again in your interpretation). Would not the other apostles have already known that Peter was “chief”, “first”, etc? If they were dim of understanding, shouldn’t have Christ reiterated his previous statement that Peter was the visible head of the church(again your interpretation)?

Matt 20
18Behold, we go up to Jerusalem; and the Son of man shall be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and they shall condemn him to death, 19And shall deliver him to the Gentiles to mock, and to scourge, and to crucify him: and the third day he shall rise again. 20Then came to him the mother of Zebedees children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. 21And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom. 22But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able. 23And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand(Peter here already?), and on my left(Peter maybe over here), is not mine to give(but Peter is already first???), but it shall be given to them for whom it is prepared of my Father. 24And when the ten heard it, they were moved with indignation against the two brethren. 25But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them(no Peter?), and they that are great exercise authority upon them(no Peter?). 26But it shall not be so among you(but Peter is the rock): but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27And whosoever will be chief(Peter?) among you, let him be your servant: 28Even as the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many. 29And as they departed from Jericho, a great multitude followed him.

 

[TNT]

exodus:

God defined everything we need to know in this life in 66 books we call the Bible…

Now all you have to do is tell us what verse .
BTW:
Where is the word TRINITY in your bible?
Where is the verse that says Christ is 2 complete natures in one Divine Person?
Where is the declaration IN your bible that says “there shall be 66 books”. Even the early KJV had more books than that in it. And that was 1600+ad!
Where does it say that 2Peter must be in your bible?
Where does it say that Hebrews is to be in your bible?
Where does it even say WHO wrote Hebrews? Was the writer Apostolic, or just some wondering apostate Jew?
The truth is YOU must go OUTSIDE the bible to prove the contents OF the Bible. BUT since that runs you smack into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, you cannot be honest. Being unable to be honest, you lose your credibility.

 

[ccconvert]

I’ve been following this thread with interest. I hope you won’t mind my asking a couple of questions. So here goes?

1. Assuming all who claim “Christian” here celebrate Christmas,
   a)Why do so?
   b)When is it celebrated?

2)Assuming all participating in this thread attend some manner of corporate worhip services,

a)Why do so?
b)When and where?

I could go on and on with similar simple questions, the answers to which are never found in the Bible. The real answer is that these practices arise from Tradition.

Trying to discern such doctrines as the Trinity, the Eucharist, Baptism and , yes, even the papacy based solely on what is recorded in Scripture would be akin to telling a surgeon to rely soley on his text book while operating - to never look at the actual patient. The Bible is the rule and guide of our faith - it is not the faith itself. The physical and human source of the Bible is the Holy Spirit working through His Church, not the other way around, and thus Scripture is also the result of tradition.

“Sola Scriptura” falls apart the more one learns about the ancient origins of the Christian Church, our faith and the actual people and practices that were present in those times.