What do Non-catholics think "upon this rock" means

  • Thread starter Thread starter JohnMPhilomena
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

JohnMPhilomena

Guest
Just curious, but what do non-catholics think Matthew 16:16-18 is about?
16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.
Click to expand...
17 And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven.
Click to expand...
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Click to expand...
To me it means that Peter and his successors (the Pope) have the fullness of truth and are the basis for the church.

Any thoughts?
 
JohnMPhilomena said:
Just curious, but what do non-catholics think Matthew 16:16-18 is about?

To me it means that Peter and his successors (the Pope) have the fullness of truth and are the basis for the church.

Any thoughts?
Click to expand...
I had a baptist tell me Jesus is referring to himself as the rock…:confused::confused:
 
From the LC-MS side of things, I’ve edited this : www.lcms.org/Document.fdoc?src=lcm&id=955

Peter is the representative of the entire assembly of the apostles, and for this reason they do not accord to Peter any prerogative or superiority, or lordship.

However, as to the declaration: Upon this rock I will build My Church, certainly the Church has not been built upon the authority of man, but upon the ministry of the confession which Peter made, in which he proclaims that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God. He accordingly addresses him as a minister: Upon this rock, i.e., upon this ministry.

Furthermore, the ministry of the New Testament is not bound to places and persons as the Levitical ministry, but it is dispersed throughout the whole world, and is there where God gives His gifts, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers; neither does this ministry avail on account of the authority of any person, but on account of the Word given by Christ.

[Nor does the person of a teacher add anything to this word and office; it matters not who is preaching and teaching it; if there are hearts who receive and cling to it, to them it is done as they hear and believe.]

And in this way, not as referring to the person of Peter, most of he holy Fathers, as Origen, Cyprian, Augustine, Hilary, and Bede, interpret this passage: Upon this rock. Chrysostom says thus: “Upon this rock,” not upon Peter. For He built His Church not upon man, but upon the faith of Peter. But what was his faith? “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Hilary says: To Peter the Father revealed that he should say, “Thou art the Son of the living God.” Therefore the building of the Church is upon this rock of confession; this faith is the foundation of the Church.
 
Some might also argue that the rock is the confession of faith by Peter and that upon this faith and this confession of faith, which would be universal among believers, Jesus will build his church. That’s the other argument that I have heard, besides the already mentioned one where Jesus apparently points to himself when Matthew wasn’t looking. This latter one makes little or no sense from a plain reading.

The Catholic explanation is the most plain and obvious reading of the text, especially when you view it in the context of all of Scripture, but I can at least understand how some might look at the confession of faith as ‘the rock’.

edit: too late. I see Ben mentioned the confession already.
 
Some have twisted even geology, claiming that, since there was supposedly a stone formation at or near Caesarea Philippi (try to find a place in the holy land without one…), that our Lord was addressing a large, nearby rock. A very strange claim to make, namely that Christ speaking either of Himself, or of a rock formation, while at precisely that time He changed Simon bar Jonah’s name to Rock. Curious, indeed…
 
To accept that Jesus just name-changed Simon to Rock, it’s fatuous to propose that He doesn’t mean Peter is the Rock as he continues to speak directly to him.
 
with protestants you’ll have 38,000 differing opinions. Proof enough it’s wrong?
 
kkollwitz said:
To accept that Jesus just name-changed Simon to Rock, it’s fatuous to propose that He doesn’t mean Peter is the Rock as he continues to speak directly to him.
Click to expand...
Matthew 16:18-19
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (Kepa, Kepha, Cephas, Rock); and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

It may be just me, but this sounds rather personally directed at Simon (Peter).

Strange that it was the rock (Peter) who wrote that the ignorant and unstable distort Paul’s writings, as they do with all the scriptures. (2 Peter 3:16) Strange also that Jesus spoke of the splinter and the log in our eyes, while Peter wrote about twisting scripture. And those who twist scripture always think that it is others who are twisting. Twisting scripture is the log in their eye which has blinded them.
 
“It may be just me, but this sounds rather personally directed at Simon (Peter).”

ditto
 
But the rock was not chosen based on faith. All the apostles had that. Even Peter exhibited a lack of faith at times. The rock was chosen by the Holy Spirit as the leader of the church.
 
I defened this verse as saying Peter was the leader of the Church because Jesus granted him that honor. It just feels like many protestants want to not think this because it could show there denomination is wrong for not having Peter as its leader. I don’t think believing Peter was the leader of the church is needed for salvation but I view it more of a common knowledge idea. Most protestants seem to be :banghead: mad by the truth.
 
studychristian said:
I defened this verse as saying Peter was the leader of the Church because Jesus granted him that honor. It just feels like many protestants want to not think this because it could show there denomination is wrong for not having Peter as its leader. I don’t think believing Peter was the leader of the church is needed for salvation but I view it more of a common knowledge idea. Most protestants seem to be :banghead: mad by the truth.
Click to expand...
studychristian,
I know that you are new to the forums and studying; but please avoid sweeping statements about Protestants.

What is your source for the statement: “Most Protestants seem to be mad by the truth”?

The Easter Orthodox interpret the passage differently than Catholics, also. Are the EO mad about the truth, also?

Do you see what I mean?

I’ve been participating in discussions here for 3 years; and while I have a great respect for Catholics, I remain unconvinced that the Pope holds authority over all of Christendom. This isn’t because I am mad or angry. Historically, it just doesn’t add up. This has been discussed on numerous threads and I’ve participated on many. So, I’m not really going into the argument again.

I’m just asking you to stop and think before you make statements about Protestants. 🙂 That’s all.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
 
just_came_back said:
with protestants you’ll have 38,000 differing opinions. Proof enough it’s wrong?
Click to expand...
Once I told a friend that I am a Christian for Christ is a Winner. He was shocked. He expected more sweet words from me…

I said, yes, He is a winner and I would not side with a loser. He won over death and I like winners. Is winning bad?

She was deeply surprised (we are good friends).

The trouble with 30 thousand Protestant is that there is no winner…
 
just_came_back said:
with protestants you’ll have 38,000 differing opinions. Proof enough it’s wrong?
Click to expand...
Well, 38000 independent churches perhaps, but everyone there has his own opinions and most think along the same lines. Anyway, I bet that there is a huge deal of diversity among Catholics as well, is that proof that it is wrong?
 
I used to think that it meant that peter was the first among equals…

Now i’ve come to terms with the Catholic viewpoint that he was the first of many popes.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Well, 38000 independent churches perhaps, but everyone there has his own opinions and most think along the same lines. Anyway, I bet that there is a huge deal of diversity among Catholics as well, is that proof that it is wrong?
Click to expand...
Protestantism, in all of its forms, traces back only to those who rejected the Catholic Church 1,500 years after Christ and stops dead there. That is an insurmountable problem for those who seek the true Church. As to diversity, faithful Catholics are united in doctrine, just as Jesus prayed to the Father. We have a tremendous problem in modern society with those who pick and choose, or are openly defiant, yet claim to be Catholic. They lack the obedience necessary to be faithful Catholics, and the decency to leave the Church with which they disagree.
 
Credo_ergo_sum said:
Well, 38000 independent churches perhaps, but everyone there has his own opinions and most think along the same lines. Anyway, I bet that there is a huge deal of diversity among Catholics as well, is that proof that it is wrong?
Click to expand...
Yes there is diversity among Catholics. We are all human and are subject to our human faults and weaknesses. Some don’t believe the Eucharist is the body and blood of our Lord, some think abortion should be legal, some think women should be priests, etc. But, the infallibility comes in what the church teaches because it is founded on Rock. Only Peter and those successors chosen by the Holy Spirit can define what is infallible teaching of the church. Which church speaks out for life of the unborn? Which church takes a stand on many controversial issues and puts it in writing for all to see.
 
Anna_Scott said:
studychristian,
I know that you are new to the forums and studying; but please avoid sweeping statements about Protestants.

What is your source for the statement: “Most Protestants seem to be mad by the truth”?

The Easter Orthodox interpret the passage differently than Catholics, also. Are the EO mad about the truth, also?

Do you see what I mean?

I’ve been participating in discussions here for 3 years; and while I have a great respect for Catholics, I remain **unconvinced **that the Pope holds authority over all of Christendom. This isn’t because I am mad or angry. Historically, it just doesn’t add up. This has been discussed on numerous threads and I’ve participated on many. So, I’m not really going into the argument again.

I’m just asking you to stop and think before you make statements about Protestants. 🙂 That’s all.

Peace and blessings,
Anna
Click to expand...
And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. - Matthew 18:17

By your OWN admission…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top