Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

[Randy_Carson]

I understand that Catholics have referred to Paul as a hypocrite. I believe it is more of a lack of understanding the context that Paul was instructing Timothy and for his own safety because Timothy’s father was a Greek, which the Jews despised and his mother was a Jew; therefore in order to train Timothy and keep him safe they made a vowel, circumcised and did the purification rites. Why? Every time Paul went to a new town he would first begin in the synagogues before heading to the gentiles and I believe Paul’s
point that Timothy would be of no use to Christ if he were dead. I am not dogmatic about it, but it seems more reasonable than hypocrite to me, but I see at least a couple of posters view as Paul being a hypocrite, so I will see if other Catholics agree as I go.

Thanks for the post.

I’m probably one of those. However, I used hyperbole to illustrate the point that it is wrong to conclude that Peter was A) not the leader, B) not the pope, C) not infallible, D) whatever the poster objects to about Catholicism simply because Paul rebuked him.

You’d be surprised how often this gets thrown in our faces, and I respond as I did to illustrate that Paul was guilty of saying one thing and doing another, also. However, I don’t actually believe Paul was being hypocritical…I think he had good reasons for acting as he did (as did Peter). Just don’t tell anyone I said this.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Caesarea: An ancient seaport in northwestern Israel; an important Roman city in ancient Palestine

See post #793 above.

C’mon, people…

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry but you are the one that said: *“And for this, we recognize that you are rightly called Christians even if you are not in full communion with the one Church Jesus promised to build upon Peter, the rock.” *

Which implies that I am wasting my time on Sunday when I go to my Church, it is an insult to me.

There is no such implication. You are a Christian even if your communion with the Church that Jesus founded is imperfect. You do well to go to church on Sunday…though you could do better by going to mass instead.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is very informative and changes everything, the more I learn the less I seem to know. Are you having more questions than answers meaning the more questions that are answered, the answers bring up more questions and answers seem to lack consistency. Is it just me in my ignorance?

Masters-

The poster that you are responding to here is not a Catholic and his post is not informative about authentic Catholic teaching.

Be aware of the religious affiliation in the upper right corner of a post. For example, may I assume that you are a Southern Baptist? If not, what does SB stand for?

 

[ARiver32]

Prodigal Son1,
That is true.
It is also important to point out that, in their traditions, naming someone meant to “posses” that person, to make that person yours. Thus Peter became a “possession” of Christ for Christ.

 

[Barry_Gabriel]

Here’s one problem. Christ also told the Apostles the greatest was the least among them. So even if Peter was the rock and not what Peter said about Christ being the Son of God, the papacy has evolved to a far greater authority than Christ would have intended.

Really? How do you know that?

 

[Javl]

Click here.

For Aramaic I found this. Click here

Surname click here.

I have checked your references. I have also re-checked my sources and have not found “surname” or any reference to it being used in any scripture ( other than the KJV ). I have also checked in various Bibles ( 7 total ) and not one uses “surname”. Therefore, not only can not I accept this use, but there is no foundation in either Hebrew or Greek translations for its being used ( I doubt that both scholars and translators are wrong ). I recommend that you use more than just the King James version of scripture before you form any opinion.

May I suggest you use the Good News Bible, and/or The International Version of The holy Bible for your sources ( I use Catholic and Protestant versions, plus others )? I find these are very easy to read and understand, besides having the most acurate translations of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin manuscripts. Peace and God bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[schaick]

Schaick, do hope you will stay in CA for good while, If your mind is sincerely wide open, you will learn the whole Truth of what Jesus wanted handed on down through his Church.
God bless you in your journey while visiting with us. :thumbsup:Carlan

Thank you very much. I do have the whole TRUTH. For me it has actually been very easy to find. I haven’t found it on my own but through the Holy Spirit. A few close encounters - a very cool experience by the way.

Randy- said “There is no such implication. You are a Christian” but then you had go and add -‘even if your communion with the Church that Jesus founded is imperfect.’

Did I miss the answers to my questions on a previous post?:

What exactly did holding the Keys of Heaven give to Peter? What is the duty as Jesus’ royal steward? To bind and loose? Are you saying that Catholics believe the Isaiah prophecy to be about Peter?

OK I found this thread: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…2&postcount=18

See the part I made bold-
Because the pope does not choose or ordain his successor. The pope, remember, is the Bishop of Rome. When a pope dies, the college of bishops elects a new pope under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Remember that the keys are held by the college of bishops (the successors to the apostles), with the pope (the Bishop of Rome) at their head.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

If Jesus didn’t give the Keys of Heaven to the disciples in Matthew 18 when and how did the group- the college of Bishops instead of just the Pope receive them?

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…9&postcount=35

Same thread another statement: A pope is not ‘ordained’, he is elected. Then- Cardinals elect popes.

Are Cardinals the college of bishops? Or is it College of Cardinals? When did Cardinals come about?

I am surprised that Popes aren’t chosen instead of “elected” the way Catholics say Jesus chose Peter.

 

[Reuben_J]

I have checked your references. I have also re-checked my sources and have not found “surname” or any reference to it being used in any scripture ( other than the KJV ). I have also checked in various Bibles ( 7 total ) and not one uses “surname”. Therefore, not only can not I accept this use, but there is no foundation in either Hebrew or Greek translations for its being used ( I doubt that both scholars and translators are wrong ). I recommend that you use more than just the King James version of scripture before you form any opinion.

May I suggest you use the Good News Bible, and/or The International Version of The holy Bible for your sources ( I use Catholic and Protestant versions, plus others )? I find these are very easy to read and understand, besides having the most acurate translations of the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin manuscripts. Peace and God bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

The Jews of Jesus time did not use ‘surname’. They are named so and so the son of or the daughter of so and so, like Simon the son of Jona, or the son of Zebedee, etc.

 

[mmmcounts]

Augustine’s opinion on the matter:
“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable” (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

Really. Did Augustine just advise the reader to practice “private interpretation?” What else would you call that?

Several ECF’s and their opinions:
“There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is, “on this faith,” or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith.””
-The Jesuit Maldonatus as found in: George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959), p.335.

Origen gets a section just for him:
“And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.”
-Origen, Commentary on Matthew 12.10

Testimony provided by a French Catholic historian:
“The French Roman Catholic Launoy surveyed the patristic evidence and found seventeen citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. Please note that this does not mean that all seventeen of these Fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of Rome was a Pope, but only that they felt that they saw Matthew 16 and the phrase “this rock” as referring to Peter. However, Launoy found sixteen citations that identified the rock as Christ. He found eight that identified all the Apostles together as forming the rock of Matthew 16. And he found forty-four citations indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ.”
-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.120.

So the one that got forty-four votes from the ECF’s…that’s the one you’ll go with, right? Ah, who am I kidding.

A Protestant argument that looks pretty convincing:
“The scriptural text most commonly cited in favor of papal infallibility is Luke 22.32. There is no lack of patristic commentary on the text. None of the Fathers interpreted it as meaning that Peter’s successors were infallible.”
-Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p. 11.

If that’s true, would it matter to you?

And finally, the argument stating that Rome departed from patristic teaching when it made a bishop into a pope:
“Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare… But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy…”
-Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

The part in bold is absolutely true, but I’m not sure if most Catholics are willing to admit it. You must at least ask yourself this, though: If that is true, what does it mean for Roman Catholicism? Is this one of those things where you’re capable of saying “It really wouldn’t trouble me if that turned out to be true”? Just curious.

The common defense to all of this is that papal infallibility was something that went through “a development.” It’s something that “gradually became more clearly recognized.” I hope that some of this has served to demonstrate that in the first three centuries of Christianity (and, in fact, until the Middle Ages where Guido Terreni was the first to describe papal infallibility in terms similar to what’s used in Vatican I), no such teaching existed at any stage of development. Theodore Abu-Qurrah was the first theologian to even discuss it.

I can understand why you might want to use this passage in order to support teaching authority and even papal primacy, but it is often used as a prooftext supporting papal infallibility as well. I don’t believe that is a tenable position.

 

[Javl]

The Jews of Jesus time did not use ‘surname’. They are named so and so the son of or the daughter of so and so, like Simon the son of Jona, or the son of Zebedee, etc.

Thanks for your back up. I had mentioned that in my post #776. Surnames were not in use in those days.

PAX DOMINI :sigfnofcross:

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Javl]

To All Who May Be Interested::

Here is the link to an address which Pope John Paul II gave in a general audience on “Christ Builds His Church on Peter”. November 1992.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921125en.html

And, this is the link to a lecture on/of the Papacy by Dr. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian Minister.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[onenow1]

To All Who May Be Interested::

Here is the link to an address which Pope John Paul II gave in a general audience on “Christ Builds His Church on Peter”. November 1992.

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19921125en.html

And, this is the link to a lecture on/of the Papacy by Dr. Scott Hahn, a former Presbyterian Minister.

catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

Excellent Papal adress Javl, thank you.

Perhaps although it would be pure conjecture on my part, Jesus who used symbols quite frequently, used this backdrop knowing Herod had renamed it, to Caesrea’ Philipi,probably to gain favor with Caesar, eliminating the god Pan showing the seat of His power to be eventually Rome.maybe?.

Peace

 

[Javl]

Quoted by onenow1

Excellent Papal adress Javl, thank you.

Perhaps although it would be pure conjecture on my part, Jesus who used symbols quite frequently, used this backdrop knowing Herod had renamed it, to Caesrea’ Philipi,probably to gain favor with Caesar, eliminating the god Pan showing the seat of His power to be eventually Rome.maybe?.

Peace

You’ve made a very interesting point. It may be more than just conjecture on your part. Why don’t you start a thread on that and see what the results will be? I will have to do some serious reading and research. God Bless.

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Simon/Simeon means ‘rock’ is a new argument, at least one that I’ve never heard before. I did a search for Hebrew to English translations and dictionaries and could find none, without a vested interest in this argument, that mentioned ‘rock’ in their translations/definitions. In fact, they all agreed with the translation/definition as listed on Wikipedia.

**The name is derived from Simeon, son of Jacob and Leah, patriarch of the Tribe of Simeon. The text of Genesis (29:33) argues that the name of Simeon refers to Leah’s belief that God had heard that she was hated by Jacob, in the sense of not being as favoured as Rachel.

כִּי־שָׁמַע יְהוָה כִּי־שְׂנוּאָה אָנֹכִי וַיִּתֶּן־לִי גַּם־אֶת־זֶה וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמֹו שִׁמְעֹון׃
“Because the LORD had heard that I was hated, he had therefore given me this son also: and she called his name Simeon.”
implying a derivation from the Hebrew term shama on, meaning “he has heard”**; this is a similar etymology as the Torah gives for the theophoric name Ishmael (“God has heard”; Genesis 16:11), on the basis of which it has been argued that the tribe of Simeon may originally have been an Ishmaelite group (Cheyne and Black, Encyclopaedia Biblica). In classical rabbinical sources, the name is sometimes interpreted as meaning “he who listens [to the words of God]” (Genesis Rabbah 61:4), and at other times thought to derive from sham 'in, meaning “there is sin”, which is argued to be a prophetic reference to Zimri’s sexual miscegenation with a Midianite woman, a type of relationship which rabbinical sources regard as sinful (Jewish Encyclopedia).

Simon

Simon is a common name, from Hebrew שִׁמְעוֹן Šimʻôn, meaning "he [God] has heard."

It’s hard to discuss real translations/definitions, when someone uses a ‘modern day’ interpreter source that has an interest in proving or justifying a point.

 

[Javl]

The Simon/Simeon means ‘rock’ is a new argument, at least one that I’ve never heard before. I did a search for Hebrew to English translations and dictionaries and could find none, without a vested interest in this argument, that mentioned ‘rock’ in their translations/definitions. In fact, they all agreed with the translation/definition as listed on Wikipedia.

Simon

It’s hard to discuss real translations/definitions, when someone uses a ‘modern day’ interpreter source that has an interest in proving or justifying a point.

The Bible which the poster used was the King James, which does have "surname " in it, but I cannot accept that version since it is not in agreement with other Bibles and translations. The KJV is the only one that uses that term. See my post #801

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The Bible which the poster used was the King James, which does have "surname " in it, but I cannot accept that version since it is not in agreement with other Bibles and translations. The KJV is the only one that uses that term. See my post #801

PAX DOMINI

Shalom Aleichem

King James Version of the Bible

**The Authorized King James Version is an English translation of the Christian Holy Bible begun in 1604 and completed in 1611 by the Church of England.[3] Printed by the King’s Printer, Robert Barker,[4] the first edition included schedules unique to the Church of England; for example, a lectionary for morning and evening prayer.[5] This was the third such official translation into English; the first having been the Great Bible commissioned by the Church of England in the reign of King Henry VIII, and the second having been the Bishop’s Bible of 1568.[6] In January 1604, King James I of England convened the Hampton Court Conference where a new English version was conceived in response to the perceived problems of the earlier translations as detected by the Puritans, a faction within the Church of England.[7]

James gave the translators instructions intended to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy.** The translation was by 47 scholars, all of whom were members of the Church of England. In common with most other translations of the period, the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus (Received Text) series of the Greek texts. The Old Testament was translated from the Masoretic Hebrew text, while the Apocrypha were translated from the Greek Septuagint (LXX), except for 2 Esdras, which was translated from the Latin Vulgate.

 

[mmmcounts]

Okay so here is something I just don’t quite get …

Well, well. Sounds like you need some sort of explanation from a Protestant.

Protestants yada yada do stuff, accomplish the same kinds of things as Catholics yada yada, let’s ignore the differences in how they get from point A to point B…yada.

Your name is really fun because I can summarize your long posts, stick your name in at random places, and wind up with a lightly condescending and somewhat snarky result.

BUT:

Catholics cannot decide to select a leader [the Pope], and Bishops, and Priests and Deacons without being told that they are in error …

Protestants don’t criticize Catholics for having a leader. We criticize your leadership for false claims to infallibility, among other things.

We don’t ask you to stop having leaders. We ask them to stop making those claims, and in lieu of that pipe dream, that you not believe things that aren’t actually true.

Catholics are united in a faith that is defined by the Scriptures and 2000 years of traditions but we are told that all that we believe is ‘wrong’ …

No you aren’t. Any Protestant will gladly affirm over 90% of what you believe. You can start with the hypostatic union and the Trinity.

Catholics have scriptures and an understanding of what those scriptures meanand how they form the Christian life … but we are wrong …

Sometimes, yeah. But everyone is. You’re not special.

Catholics are free to remain in the Church or leave - no one is being forced to stay against their will.

Oh boy. That may be how it is now, but it wasn’t always that way. And there may be some truth to the argument that if it were possible, it still would be that way. Hey, you know something? If the counter-Reformation had been as successful as most Catholics tend to wish it had been, that kind of situation would be anywhere from possible to probable.

How would you describe the counter-Reformation, anyway? Would you say it was a movement to convince people to change their minds and want to stay Catholic, or is it possible that it’s better described as an effort to force people to stay against their will?

If you choose the first option, I’d really like to know why you’d need an army to accomplish that goal.

Why do you get to have all of the liberty of faith and we [the Catholics and/or the Catholic Church] can’t have that same freedom?

I don’t believe Protestants are denying Catholics any liberties or freedoms, nor do we attempt to do so. We do reserve the right to pass honest judgment on any and all truth-claims made by your leadership, though, and if we disagree, we will say so.

Do you have that freedom?

Why are you so threatened by following Jesus [especially if you are so convinced that you are in doing what Jesus is leading you to?] …

I don’t feel threatened by Jesus in any way at all. Please just take my word for it, as it would be unreasonable for you to presume that you know more about what I’m threatened by than I do.

Why are you afraid of the Scriptures, the Church, the Churches teachings and the Pope?

I’m not any more afraid of those four things than I am of you. Why do you say “fierce” all the time, and without a hint of irony, at that?

I just did the same thing. See that?

Do you not see that Catholics love Jesus? Catholics follow Jesus.

Depends on the Catholic. As a group, you’re no better and no worse than Protestants. As an individual, I’m sure you’d be an exemplary role model in any Christian gathering.

Ok…I don’t actually know you, and I’m kind of guessing. But that is my guess.

We minister to the poor, educate people, provide medical care, some even giving up the chance at marriage and children, and even their very lives in service to Jesus! Praying unceasingly for others. Operating orphanages, hospitals, schools, homeless shelters, soup kitchens, parish ministry - all walks of life are touched by Catholics - sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ …

Do you notice when prominent Protestants take note of these kinds of things and praise them? It does happen, you know.

Why do you care if we look to the Pope for leadership on our walk of faith with Jesus ?

False claims of infallibility.

We Christians have been doing so for 2000 years

That thing with papal infallibility? No, not that. That goes back about 1200 years to Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century, and that only had to do with ecumenical councils. It wasn’t until Guido Terreni in the early 14th century that anything was put together that started to look like the terms used in Vatican I.

And you wonder why we want to remain in the Boat of Peter …

You could just tell us. That’s what most people do. It tends to be a little different for everyone.

From the general tone of this post, though, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that you were never a Protestant, you have a very low regard for Protestantism, and you can’t fathom why anyone would prefer that over what you were born into. Is that an accurate assessment?

If you’re really wondering why a Catholic would want to become a Protestant, you could always ask one. If you aren’t that interested in knowing, don’t ask. How does the saying go? Something like…if you don’t ask, we won’t tell? I think it’s something along those lines.

 

[schaick]

Did I miss the answers to my questions on a previous post?:

What exactly did holding the Keys of Heaven give to Peter? What is the duty as Jesus’ royal steward? To bind and loose? Are you saying that Catholics believe the Isaiah prophecy to be about Peter?

If Jesus didn’t give the Keys of Heaven to the disciples in Matthew 18 when and how did the group- the college of Bishops instead of just the Pope receive them?

Are Cardinals the college of bishops? Or is it College of Cardinals? When did Cardinals come about?

I am surprised that Popes aren’t chosen instead of “elected” the way Catholics say Jesus chose Peter.

 

[AwGusTeen]

Protestants don’t criticize Catholics for having a leader. We criticize your leadership for false claims to infallibility, among other things.

Well, that would be your opinion…

We don’t ask you to stop having leaders. **We **ask them to stop making those claims, and in lieu of that pipe dream, that you not believe things that aren’t actually true.

And by what authority do you ask that or anything else of the Catholic Church?

Oh boy. That may be how it is now, but it wasn’t always that way. And there may be some truth to the argument that if it were possible, it still would be that way.

Are you making that argument? If so, I would like to see you prove that one.

I don’t believe Protestants are denying Catholics any liberties or freedoms, nor do we attempt to do so. We do reserve the right to pass honest judgment on any and all truth-claims made by your leadership, though, and if we disagree, we will say so.

We? I’m glad to see that you have the authority to speak on behalf of all Protestants. Unlike you, however, I reserve the right to pass honest judgement on doctrines held by any Protestant denomination, and if they differ from those handed down from the Apostles via scripture/tradition and preserved by the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, then I will say so.

That thing with papal infallibility? No, not that. That goes back about 1200 years to Theodore Abu-Qurrah in the 9th century, and that only had to do with ecumenical councils. It wasn’t until Guido Terreni in the early 14th century that anything was put together that started to look like the terms used in Vatican I.

No, it goes back to Peter Really, I think many Protestants (notice that I didn’t lump all Protestants together as you have routinely done) are confusing Papal infallibility with impeccability.

From the general tone of this post, though, I’ve come to the tentative conclusion that you were never a Protestant, you have a very low regard for Protestantism, and you can’t fathom why anyone would prefer that over what you were born into. Is that an accurate assessment?

I know that you were addressing this statement to another poster, but I would like to jump in on it if I may.

I was a Protestant of the Southern Baptist flavor for 40 years before comming into the Catholic Church and - yes - I too have a low regard for some individuals who claim to represent much (but not all) of Protestantism. In order to come to that conclusion, all one needs do is to turn on TBN.