Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TEPO said:
If you are right, then every single Catholic, that has ever been, has been duped.

This would mean that Christianity would have spent its first 1500 years lying to its own Faithful. Who could stick with a religeon that spread throughout the world by means of lies? 🤷 Even Protestantism would have stemmed from a lie.

Elimination of the Church is the agenda of satan.

Peter is Rock !
Click to expand...
Hi TEPO: Your post rings very true, but I’m afraid it will be ignored, rejected, or some ridiculous statement made about it. It is very difficult to get through to a person who claims to be Catholic and knows about Catholicism but rejects teachings of the Catholic Church. Keep in mind that adage of " they hear but do not listen, and they look but do not see". God Bless, and good luck.

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
A ridiculous statement: Eve, first mother, was beguiled into believing a lie. Adam, first father, disobeyed and plunged the creation into sin and death–not sure exactly why–surely unbelief. Israel, chosen of God, built a golden calf to worship not long after Moses went to Mt. Sinai. Paul rebuked Peter (The Rock??) for believing and preaching a lie–this was after Mt.16:18. Satan is a liar from the beginning–yet it is no wonder, he has become an angel of light. Some folks are given over to strong delusion–they believe a lie.

Yes, even the chosen have been known to believe a lie. Now What?

It is in The Book. See also: The Lamb’s Book of Life

Peace,

James Least
 
James_Least said:
A ridiculous statement: Eve, first mother, was beguiled into believing a lie. Adam, first father, disobeyed and plunged the creation into sin and death–not sure exactly why–surely unbelief. Israel, chosen of God, built a golden calf to worship not long after Moses went to Mt. Sinai. Paul rebuked Peter (The Rock??) for believing and preaching a lie–this was after Mt.16:18. Satan is a liar from the beginning–yet it is no wonder, he has become an angel of light. Some folks are given over to strong delusion–they believe a lie.

Yes, even the chosen have been known to believe a lie. Now What?

It is in The Book. See also: The Lamb’s Book of Life

Peace,

James Least
Click to expand...
Who are you responding to? Please use the quote button next time.
 
HisWill777 said:
Well the Church presumes to know, correct?

On topic, I believe that Peter is the Rock, and Christ founded His Church on Him. I’m having trouble following why that means others after Peter can claim infallibility, etc. Peter was an apostle of Christ, one of His Chosen. I don’t believe any men since, popes, saints, pastors, priests, scholars, etc. have approached that level of holiness. That is why we were left the Scriptures, to guide us, since all men and women ARE fallible.

I as a Christian am definitely for the idea of one Church, or the Catholic Church, I just have a hard time accepting all the rules created by men in the Church. This is exactly what Jesus railed against the Pharisees and Sadducees for.

Off topic, quick question, the Church has many saints and emphasizes Mary’s role, why aren’t the greats of the OT emphasized (Moses, Abraham, David, etc). Are any of these declared saints? Just curious.
Click to expand...
Infallibility after Peter, comes from apostolic succession. The laying on of hands to ordain a new bishop has never stopped. They did this when Judas was gone, and continued. They believe that Christ left them, the original apostles, with the power to ordain as he had them. “As the Father has sent me, so I send you”

The “rules” set by the men of the Church are set by the Holy Spirit through men. If you agree that the Holy Spirit does indeed still work on this earth, and through men, would he not be infallible in what he would work/teach?

About the amount of Holiness that the early fathers have, I would remind you that Peter denied Christ three times, cut off a soldiers ear and was reprimanded for it, among other things. He was a prideful, blunt man. I have no doubt that he continued to sin after Christ was gone, as we are all sinners. Does this mean he was not worthy to lead the new Church?

I agree with you that the early apostles were most likely, the most holy in the world, simply for the fact they got to hang out with the big guy.

I do, however, think that others have come as close, if not just an 1/16 of an inch away from the same holiness. Mother Teresa, Pope JP II, and more have been so holy in their lives.

Your last question…I am not honestly sure if Moses and the rest of the OT peps were named Saints. I don’t honestly think so really, but I don’t believe there is little doubt that they are actually in heaven of course. Therefore, they would be saints. 🙂
 
Carlan said:
Of course Jesus Christ is the head of the Church he founded, He chose Peter as the first Vicar on earth giving him the keys. The Church refers to the succeeding Popes as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Why make it so complicated.:)Carlan
Click to expand...
I echo your sentiment - with Peter and his chosen successors as the leaders of the Church, it’s a rather simple system and it works. Much simpler than this Protestant theory with “it’s not really the person, but his faith or confession”. Let’s not forget that the Protestant reformers, all of whom had the “faith” and “confessed” Christ, thus becoming in their own eyes that “Rock” on which the Church is founded, kept burning each other at the stake when they disagreed on doctrinal issues and came to regard each other as heretics. How is it possible that person A and person B both have faith, both confess Christ, thus both are the Rock on which the Church is founded (at least in their own interpretations), and yet they disagree to the point of burning each other at the stake? Also, look at the disarray that the Eastern Orthodox Churches have fallen into, with the major and continued rivalry between the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Moscow, as well as other Patriarchs taking positions in either one or the other of the camps opposed to each other.

The system with a single and easy to identify leader (Peter and his successors the Popes) also has precedent in the OT. God chose Moses as the leader of Israel, he wasn’t even perfect, he led Israel to the entrance of the promised land, but had to die without entering it, because he messed up something and God told him this would be his punishment. Yet, God made him and kept him as the leader of the nation of Israel, and Israel had to accept him whether they liked him or not. Another such single leader, chosen by God, was King David. He also messed up once really bad - by sleeping with Bathseba, the wife of his soldier and friend Uriah. Then, his scheme to have Uriah killed was really disgusting - on a par with the schemes of some of the worst Popes the Catholic Church had during the Renaissance period. Yet, while God punished King David, he also kept him as the leader of Israel, in spite of his major screw-up on that one occasion. God has chosen single leaders before, and used them to lead his nation Israel, in spite of the imperfections of the leaders he chose. And as God’s household in the OT was Israel, his household in the NT is his Church. And the leader of his Church, one single and easy to identify person, is Peter or his successor the actual Pope.
 
tweetymom said:
Peter had faith who Jesus was as did the other apostles. So my faith in Jesus is the same as Peters faith in Him. Jesus is my rock of faith. Not Peter as the rock to build a Church. Now if you don’t get it perhaps you need help.
Click to expand...
Maybe it’s a communication problem on several fronts. It appears, by your wording, that you might think Catholics don’t have a primary faith in Christ and that’s simply not true. Christ is the head of the Church, which He rules from His heavenly throne. Peter was the ‘earthly’ leader of the Church Christ rules. Just because we believe there is an earthly leader appointed by Christ it does not diminish, in anyway, the fact that Christ is the head of His Church. That is a twist some Protestants use, even though Catholics correct them, in an attempt to make the Catholic Church appear as wrong on another point…
 
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Maybe it’s a communication problem on several fronts. It appears, by your wording, that you might think Catholics don’t have a primary faith in Christ and that’s simply not true. Christ is the head of the Church, which He rules from His heavenly throne. Peter was the ‘earthly’ leader of the Church Christ rules. Just because we believe there is an earthly leader appointed by Christ it does not diminish, in anyway, the fact that Christ is the head of His Church. That is a twist some Protestants use, even though Catholics correct them, in an attempt to make the Catholic Church appear as wrong on another point…
Click to expand...
That is not what I am saying. I know that Catholics have faith in Jesus. Jesus never made a mistake and earthly leaders have and do.
 
tweetymom said:
That is not what I am saying. I know that Catholics have faith in Jesus. Jesus never made a mistake and earthly leaders have and do.
Click to expand...
Jesus knows all men (mankind) and He knows our weaknesses. The Apostles continously questioned His teachings, Peter denied Him three times, Judas betrayed Him, Paul persecuted ‘Him’ and Thomas doubted Him. He knew, and knows, there were and would not any who would be perfect. Yet, He ordained the Apostles and He gave them the keys to the kingdom of heaven, He gave them the authority to bind and loose on earth, He sent them out to preach the Gospel and He told Peter to feed His lambs.

How is it one can consider the scriptures ‘perfect’ when it was written by men who made mistakes, yet doubt the Church Christ built because of men who were not and would not be perfect?

It seems to limit the power of the Holy Spirit to only have the ability to do one task and only be able to protect the inspired written word of God through the canonization process, the many years, with just as many translations and , now, the multiple interpretations of scriptures, all by less than perfect men.

Why is it that some people don’t believe God could protect His truth through a Church He, Himself, started?

Christ did not write anything Himself, nor did He command anything transcibed, but we know He started a Church. Yet again, people believe totally in the one Christ never did or ordered done and doubt His ability to protect the one we know He started. As I said, both involved less than perfect people, as there is only one that is perfect…
 
Lib_Christian said:
Yeah I know about the belief of infallibilty in doctrine. But hmm… the sheep were very safe. Tell that to some young child who was sexually abused and then had it covered up by the apostolic successors. We shall know the false teachers by their fruit.
Click to expand...
I see this person has already been banned,so it look like we do not have to answer the question
 
Bill_Pick said:
I see this person has already been banned,so it look like we do not have to answer the question
Click to expand...
Who are you talking about?
The OP is certainly still here and I am glad he is.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all.
In Him,
Janet
 
tweetymom said:
Peter’s faith in who Jesus was, Faith= rock not Peter.Jesus’s church is built on faith of who Jesus is.
Click to expand...
Hi Tweetmom

Sorry late into this talk, you did say you have read the original Aramaic and/or Greek, correct? You of course know something always gets lost in translation, right? Just checking.
 
Carlan said:
What do you mean general apostasy?, and ancient apostolic ministry? are you saying that revelation wasn’t handed onto their successors after the last apostle John died.

That’s not right:shrug::eek:Carlan
Click to expand...
No, I am saying just the opposite and the Rock is revelation by the Holy Ghost. Not Peter!
 
Lib_Christian said:
So you do presume to know the mind of God concerning the seriousness of any given sin or you don’t? You presume my missing Mass last Friday was mortal sin, right?
Click to expand...
Not at all.
It is a question of the circumstance of a sin and what exactly the church has specified.

I would never presume missing Mass to be a mortal sin. I cannot know all of the circumstances leading up to it, and therefore could not judge if the criteria for a mortal sin were actually met.
 
Lapey said:
“Lib Christian”
Click to expand...
Oh. Thank you.
You are right. He seems to have been banned.
Peace be to you, and love with faith, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with all those who love our Lord Jesus Christ with incorruptible love.

In Him,
Janet
 
**tweetymom,

I noticed you overlooked my post (quoted below). I’d really be interested in your explanation of my thoughts and questions from that post.**
Prodigal_Son1 said:
Jesus knows all men (mankind) and He knows our weaknesses. The Apostles continously questioned His teachings, Peter denied Him three times, Judas betrayed Him, Paul persecuted ‘Him’ and Thomas doubted Him. He knew, and knows, there were and would not any who would be perfect. Yet, He ordained the Apostles and He gave them the keys to the kingdom of heaven, He gave them the authority to bind and loose on earth, He sent them out to preach the Gospel and He told Peter to feed His lambs.

How is it one can consider the scriptures ‘perfect’ when it was written by men who made mistakes, yet doubt the Church Christ built because of men who were not and would not be perfect?

It seems to limit the power of the Holy Spirit to only have the ability to do one task and only be able to protect the inspired written word of God through the canonization process, the many years, with just as many translations and , now, the multiple interpretations of scriptures, all by less than perfect men.

Why is it that some people don’t believe God could protect His truth through a Church He, Himself, started?

Christ did not write anything Himself, nor did He command anything transcibed, but we know He started a Church. Yet again, people believe totally in the one Christ never did or ordered done and doubt His ability to protect the one we know He started. As I said, both involved less than perfect people, as there is only one that is perfect…
Click to expand...
 
rmcmullan said:
No, I am saying just the opposite and the Rock is revelation by the Holy Ghost. Not Peter!
Click to expand...
Hey rmcmullan,

I really fail to see how it was a ‘revelation’. In short, how does a ‘revelation’ or ‘revealing’ receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the authority to bind and loose on earth, with a promise it would be made so in heaven?

God has an authority to bind and loose, as He pleases, but someone on earth was receiving the authority to bind and loose which, from the Catholic perspective, comes from intervention of the Holy Spirit. This is evident because of the promise it would be made so in heaven.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top