Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)
Jimmy Akin ^ | September 25, 2009 | Jimmy Akin

Posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6

"You are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church." (Matt 16:18)

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.


Peter's confession of Christ

We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)

The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.

Then comes the crucial question: "But who do you say I am?" As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."

The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus' reply in full:

1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
1b. but my Father who is in heaven.

2. And I tell you, you are Petros,
2a. and on this rock I will build my church,
2b. and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.

3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
3a. and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
3b. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven't seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.

What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: "1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter's behalf.

It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that "Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven" is a commentary on "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona", and that "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" is a commentary on "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that "On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it" is not a commentary on "I tell you, you are Petros"; that after saying "You are Petros," Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.

Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: "Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!" Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.

Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter's beatitude: "For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven." Peter's beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.

It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, "Get behind me, Satan!" (or "Get behind me, you satan!"). Most of Jesus' maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups ("Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.

Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn't. Rather, the point is simply Peter's unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus' own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. "Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required" (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.

Then comes the second leading clause: "And I say to you, you are Petros." The first word, kagõ (a contraction of "And I"), is emphatic (the Greek doesn't require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father's gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus' identity to Peter, and now it is the Son's turn to reveal something to Peter.

"You are Petros." Peter has told Jesus who he is ("You are the Messiah"); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?

John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, "You will be called Kephas," a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either "from this point forward" or "at some point in the future"). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins "Simon whom he surnamed Peter," but ends with "Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him" (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.

The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to "Simon Peter" in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as "Simon who is called Peter" (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn't tell us when he first began to go by that name.

Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus' words to Peter at their meeting — "You will be called Kephas" — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.

It seems an open question. It's possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.

On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon's given name, it seems plausible that Peter's brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it's also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.

What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn't already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter's confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles' feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)

It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:

No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;

for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
I will make you exceedingly fruitful;
and I will make nations of you,
and kings shall come forth from you." (Genesis 17:5-6)

As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.

I will bless her,
and moreover I will give you a son by her;
I will bless her,
and she shall be a mother of nations;
kings of peoples shall come from her. (Gen 17:15-16)

Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,

for you have striven with God and with men,
and have prevailed. (Gen 32:28)

The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God's plan of salvation. Jacob's name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God's plan (though this point isn't explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).

If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob's new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)

All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter's new name reflects a new role in Jesus' messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that "upon this rock" constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter's new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, "No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…"

If "this rock" is not Peter, what is it? There's the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun "this" implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said "this rock" — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew's purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that's worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.

The conjunction "and" (kai) links the second clause ("upon this rock") to the main clause ("I say to you, you are Petros"). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.

Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between "You are Petros" and "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter's confession, Peter's faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.

The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.

NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.

Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; History
KEYWORDS: catholic; papacy; peter; petrinefacts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

1 posted on 09/25/2009 1:42:15 PM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Hope you are enjoying this series.


2 posted on 09/25/2009 1:43:49 PM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
"At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself."

Uh, NOT!

What's funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter "SATAN!" Not only this but Peter lied about Christ three times. This is the man the Catholic church thinks is their "best guy."

I fear the Catholic church really needs to read Scripture rather than making it up.

3 posted on 09/25/2009 1:45:55 PM PDT by ConservativeMind (Liberals have an inability to value good character or to desire it for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thank you, fascinating.


4 posted on 09/25/2009 1:46:46 PM PDT by agere_contra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Bobsvainbabblings
There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

Since you have expressed an interest in this topic on previous threads, I am pinging you to the sequel.

5 posted on 09/25/2009 1:47:17 PM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Not Sir! You read this wrong. The reference to “Satan” was the Satanic temptation (that all humans even the Christ was faced with) that prompted Peter to steer the Christ away from the Crucifixtion.


6 posted on 09/25/2009 1:53:14 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
What's funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter "SATAN!" Not only this but Peter lied about Christ three times. This is the man the Catholic church thinks is their "best guy."

Reminder, dear friend in Christ, the Catholic Church gave you the Bible. That said, let's take a closer look at Peter's reaction. No sooner is he named "prime minister", than Peter pulls the king aside and advises him to take a different road. As he had been praised by the Master, now he is rebuked. Jesus goes so far as to call him “Satan.” This illustrates well what the Catholic Church teaches about the subject. For Catholic doctrine does not proclaim that the pope can never make a mistake in personal judgment. It is only when he fully engages his authority as successor of Peter speaking from Peter’s seat of authority (“ex cathedra”) that the Church guarantees him to be acting under the charism of truth given by the Father through the Spirit.

When Peter publicly proclaimed “you are the Christ,” Jesus pointed out that this was not from him, but from the Father. When Peter privately said, “God forbid that you should suffer,” Jesus notes that the source of this was himself. And what’s worse, this human opinion was being used by a diabolic manipulator to tempt the Lord to choose comfort and honor over suffering and sacrifice.

Jesus will have none of it, of course. After all, He is the truth incarnate. And the truth is that glory comes only after sacrifice. And His own incomparable sacrifice will not make things easy for his disciples, but will blaze the trail of sacrifice that they too must walk. The sacrifice that he will offer will be Himself. The sacrifice they will be called to offer will be similar: “offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, your spiritual worship.” (Romans 12:1-2).

Peter couldn’t quite get it. None of them could. This is entirely understandable. During the ministry of Jesus the apostles here and there experienced a passing inspiration from the Holy Spirit, but that Creator Spirit had not yet taken up residence within them. That only came when the fire descended on them in the upper room. Before Pentecost, they ran from suffering. After Pentecost they run towards it. Peter, who denied Jesus, ultimately gave his life for him. A successor of Peter, John Paul II, preached his most eloquent sermon by continuing to serve in the twilight years of his life, a living witness of loving self-giving which is a fruit of Pentecost. cf

7 posted on 09/25/2009 2:02:53 PM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

Paul publicly rebukes Peter for binding the consciences of the Jerusalem converts concerning dietary laws.


8 posted on 09/25/2009 2:04:49 PM PDT by Cletus.D.Yokel (FreepMail me if you want on the Bourbon ping list!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer
There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

LOL.

Well ..... I guess all those pesky arguments from the Protestants are finally over, eh?

Sounds like the Protestants on FR will be turning in their keyboards and getting themselves on over to a Roman Catholic church asap.

Gonna be real quiet here on the Religion segment of FR. Like really Zzzzzzzz time.

Wait!

What's that?

Listen carefully and you can hear the sound of virtual hammers nailing something onto the virtual doors of virtual Roman Catholic churches!

Hmmmmmm ..... those Protestants are like the Terminator aren't they!

That's what they do! That's all they do! They'll never stop!

Oh well, so much for "near unanimity".

9 posted on 09/25/2009 2:24:42 PM PDT by Col Freeper (FR is a smorgasbord of Conservative thoughts and ideas - dig in and enjoy it to its fullest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind
This is the man the Catholic church thinks is their "best guy."

No. This is the man Scripture says Jesus chose. That is all that matters.

God doesn't choose the man we think is the "best guy". He chooses the little and the insignificant, so everyone can see that the He is the one who is really at work.

I fear the Catholic church really needs to read Scripture

We've been reading it for 2000 years. Have you ever considered the possibility that maybe we have some deeper insights that look like nonsense to those whose acquaintance with Scripture is more superficial?

10 posted on 09/25/2009 2:25:06 PM PDT by Campion ("President Barack Obama" is an anagram for "An Arab-backed Imposter")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; FormerLib; kosta50; Nikas777; Yudan

Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope:

” In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)”

Fr. Stykianopoulos, whom I know well, said this at a Vatican symposium in the fall of 2004:

“Peter is a pre-eminent figure in the New Testament, but not the only one.”

“No single apostolic figure enjoys universal dominance or exclusive authority in the New Testament,” he said. “In other words, the ‘primacy’ of Peter is not power over other apostolic figures, but an authorized leadership in the context of shared apostolic authority in the common life of the church.”


11 posted on 09/25/2009 3:35:20 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis
“Peter is a pre-eminent figure in the New Testament, but not the only one.”

He's the "to to" guy.

12 posted on 09/25/2009 3:48:40 PM PDT by NYer ( "One Who Prays Is Not Afraid; One Who Prays Is Never Alone"- Benedict XVI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

Isn’t it extraordinary, K?...

...that Rome disregards the words of the church Father they revere above all, +Augustine of Hippo...

...when it suits their ends?


13 posted on 09/25/2009 3:54:11 PM PDT by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yudan

Are you surprised?


14 posted on 09/25/2009 3:57:14 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

LOL...Not even a little.


15 posted on 09/25/2009 3:59:15 PM PDT by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I am loving this. There is so much to love about Peter. He’s so human and one of the most well developed characters in the New Testament. This commentary made me think about him in new ways.

I love knowing that he is the only person Jesus ever called “Blessed” individually.

I love hearing the voice say: and YOU are Peter...

And I love the reference to Gen 32:28 which hints that Peter has striven with men and God and thus can be renamed.

Thank you for posting this.


16 posted on 09/25/2009 4:42:20 PM PDT by Melian ("In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned." Twain)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

***Hmmmmmm ..... those Protestants are like the Terminator aren’t they!***

Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?


17 posted on 09/25/2009 4:56:06 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer; All
This segment is more speculation to prove a pre determined viewpoint. Nowhere in this, or any of the segments, has there been one verse to prove the author's point. There are a lot of Jesus said this so it might mean this or that. There is not one instance where the author has a verse to prove why Jesus renamed Peter. The same for Peter being the rock He would build His Church on.

On the other hand, I have posted scriptural proof who Jesus, Peter and the Holy Spirit agree Is the Rock that Christ's Church is built on. NYer, you have yet to comment on what I have posted.

I will post the scripture once again. Maybe you or someone else can explain why this isn't as plain to any of you, as it is to me.

This was Peter filled with the Spirit Jesus promised to send to lead us in all truth.

Acts 4:7-12 (New King James Version)

7 And when they had set them in the midst, they asked, “By what power or by what name have you done this?”
8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them, “Rulers of the people and elders of Israel: 9 If we this day are judged for a good deed done to a helpless man, by what means he has been made well, 10 let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. 11 This is the ‘stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.[a] 12 Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

There is no doubt by the Holy Spirit or Peter that Jesus Christ is the cornerstone of the New Testament Church.  I have no doubt Peter would tell the 'church' leaders of today the same thing much to yours and their dismay.

There is no need for any one to be eminent on earth. We are all members of His heavenly body with His Spirit leading us like It lead Peter in acts.

Where is Peter and I wrong? BVB

 

18 posted on 09/25/2009 5:02:19 PM PDT by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

***Where is Peter and I wrong? BVB***

Peter isn’t. And neither are you, in this context. Jesus is the petros and Peter is the petra. Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away.

The steward rules the kingdom in the Name of the King. Some rule well - Peter. Some rule ill - Denethor in Gondor comes to mind.


19 posted on 09/25/2009 5:20:10 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Campion; NYer

Another view:

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

Or, if you prefer, the great church father...J. Vernon McGee:

“Who is the Rock? The Rock is Christ. The church is built upon Christ. We have Simon Peter’s own explanation of this. In 1 Peter 2:4, referring to Christ, he writes, [4As you come to him, a living stone rejected by men but in the sight of God chosen and precious, 5 you yourselves like living stones are being built up as a spiritual house]. And he remembers Isaiah 28:16, [”Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a cornerstone chosen and precious, and whoever believes in him will not be put to shame.”] - 1 Peter 2:6. The church is built upon Christ; he is the foundation. [11For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.] 1 Cor 3:11”


20 posted on 09/25/2009 6:07:13 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis; Yudan; NYer

I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here. As to his statement that the Rock is not Peter’s Confession, well, I’ve read direct quotes from the Fathers who said otherwise. So who are we to dispute them?

My favorite exegetical way to look at Peter’s role lies in comparing the grant of authority in Matt 16 with Matt 18. It seems very deliberate here. The apostles are granted authority corporately in Matt 18 and it is the same authority that Peter individually is granted in Matt 16. That juxtaposition is interesting.

At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united. That really seems to be hitting at the essence of St. Matthew’s juxtaposition.


21 posted on 09/25/2009 6:26:51 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Yudan
...that Rome disregards the words of the church Father they revere above all, +Augustine of Hippo...

Care to explain?

22 posted on 09/25/2009 6:28:42 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr

“Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away.”

Odd. “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you...it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged. I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”

Why do you think God is away? Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?


23 posted on 09/25/2009 6:42:01 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; NYer
Thank you for your Scriptural response, as always, Mr R.

Why can't we all just state the obvious instead of going back and forth over this same issue time after time? Nyer and others post articles like these to try to prove that the Roman Catholic is the only true church. They trot out the Peter as rock and therefore the first pope dogma so that they can "prove" the apostolic succession to the current pope. By stating this, they can then say that whatever the popes have determined as doctrine through the ages, they can confidently accept as truth because Jesus gave the keys to Peter and his successors and they are infallible.

I highly doubt most protestant theologians have accepted this as true, because there are many doctrines the RCC has decreed that are NOT scriptural and even contradict Scripture. When called on this, they fall back on the easy answer of that's your interpretation and the Catholic Church GAVE you the Bible nonsense. What is the point?

24 posted on 09/25/2009 6:44:01 PM PDT by boatbums (Not everything faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed unless it is faced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Campion; NYer

“St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4,”

Very good, Mr. R. As we know, Blessed Augustine, along with virtually all the other Fathers, save perhaps for +Jerome, were quite consistent on their definition of The Rock and it was not the person of +Peter. The notion that +Peter was the Rock was popularized by +Pope Gregory and +Pope Leo the Great for their own purposes.


25 posted on 09/25/2009 6:47:04 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
***Hmmmmmm ..... those Protestants are like the Terminator aren’t they!***

Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?

LOL,

No, I mean that, just like the Terminator would never stay down when the heroes of the movie thought he was destroyed, Protestants are not likely to give up their beliefs, just because the Author of the article states that "near unanimity" now exists.

LOL, I don't mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON'T want to see that .... trust me on this.

Metal skeleton .... Hmmm, could that be the cause of my stiff back when I get up in the mornings?

Glowing eyes? ...... I'll have check tonight after I turn out the lights to go to sleep, and get back to you on that one.

26 posted on 09/25/2009 6:48:31 PM PDT by Col Freeper (FR is a smorgasbord of Conservative thoughts and ideas - dig in and enjoy it to its fullest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

Another point you have made before on other threads - God can be very specific, as when he instituted the Levitical Priesthood. Yet in giving Peter authority as Vicar of Christ, he was...well, exceedingly indirect, wasn’t he?

Shoot, even Peter didn’t know!

The whole idea of Papal Supremacy comes down to Jesus saying, “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter replies, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus then says, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, “You are number one among the Apostles.” Yet from this I am supposed to believe that B16 is the “Vicar of Christ” while God is away...since the Holy Spirit is OBVIOUSLY incompetent.


27 posted on 09/25/2009 6:49:29 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Claud; Yudan; NYer

“At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united.”

Go right ahead and sound like a broken record. I think Met. John of Pergamum has it just right, though there are Orthodox who vigorously disagree.


28 posted on 09/25/2009 6:51:42 PM PDT by Kolokotronis (Christ is Risen, and you, o death, are annihilated!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

***Why do you think God is away?***

The whole deal of the Ascension in which Jesus is taken away up to Heaven and promises to return is significant. The Holy Spirit, which He promises to send, does not actually arrive until Pentecost. Peter and the Apostles are bereft and very afraid. The Holy Spirit arrives at Pentecost and Peter takes charge and leads the Apostles into the future of the Church.

So; what does all this mean? The Holy Spirit is not a physical form and works through men. Jesus was physical and acted in person. And, Jesus set up his own Church and instructed (rather laboriously) his Apostles to carry out His instruction.

***Could this be why some church fathers called the Holy Spirit the ‘Vicar of Christ’?***

Yes. The term Vicar means substitute or somebody who acts in the place of somebody higher ranking. In other words, the man who acts for Christ in the celebration of the Mass or other capacity while waiting for Him to return.


29 posted on 09/25/2009 6:52:19 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

“What is the point?”

I’ve asked that of myself at times. For me, the answer has 2 parts.

1 - There are lurkers who read these threads, and I don’t want these claims about Catholicism to go unanswered.

2 - The validity of our witness is not determined by the number of converts, but by how closely we hew to the truth.


30 posted on 09/25/2009 6:56:32 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

***Do you mean that Protestants are evil machines that kill human beings indiscriminately simply because they are humans? Do you mind if I get the popcorn before you peel your skin off to reveal your metal skeleton and glowing eyes?

LOL,

No, I mean that, just like the Terminator would never stay down when the heroes of the movie thought he was destroyed, Protestants are not likely to give up their beliefs, just because the Author of the article states that “near unanimity” now exists.***

I don’t think that near unanimity exists. I believe!!! that the bulk of Protestants are headed down the path of the Unitarians simply because they do not have a ground or a basis for their beliefs.

***LOL, I don’t mind waiting for you to get the popcorn, but I must warn you, that to peel of my skin, I would have to peel off my clothes, and you DON’T want to see that .... trust me on this.***

I trust you and ask you to trust me back as well

I think that there is either an objective basis (ie the Church) or a subjective basis (ie the individual) for moral guidance. The problem with a subjective basis is that it can move according to the emotion or whim of the individual, whereas the objective basis (ie the 10 Commandments) is set and cannot be changed according to whether or not your wife loves you today.


31 posted on 09/25/2009 6:58:30 PM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

I’ve had spinal fusion surgery twice. Titanium was used. Does that count?


32 posted on 09/25/2009 7:03:23 PM PDT by boatbums (Not everything faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed unless it is faced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Claud
Claud, the following is from +Augustine's Sermon #295, given on the Feast Day of Sts. Peter and Paul. I have added the underlining for emphasis. For the record, he echoes this verbage in his Tractate on the Gospel of John, at 124.5...

Today the Holy Church piously remembers the sufferings of the Holy Glorious and All-Praised Apostles Peter and Paul.

St. Peter, the fervent follower of Jesus Christ, for the profound confession of His Divinity: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God,” was deemed worthy by the Savior to hear in answer, “Blessed art thou, Simon … I tell thee, that thou art Peter [Petrus], and on this stone [petra] I build My Church” (Mt.16:16-18). On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is, just as the Christian is from Christ, and not Christ from the Christian. Do you want to know, from what sort of “rock” [petra] the Apostle Peter [Petrus] was named? Hear the Apostle Paul: “Brethren, I do not want ye to be ignorant,” says the Apostle of Christ, “how all our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and all were baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Cor.10: 1-4). Here is the stone, from whence the “Rock” is Peter.

Our Lord Jesus Christ, in the final days of His earthly life, in the days of His mission to the race of man, chose from among the disciples His twelve Apostles to preach the Word of God. Among them, the Apostle Peter for his fiery ardor was vouchsafed to occupy the first place (Mt.10:2) and to be as it were the representative person for all the Church. Therefore it is said to him, preferentially, after the confession: “I will give unto thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in the heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth: shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt.16: 19). Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures, where the same Lord says to all His Apostles, “Receive ye the Holy Spirit” and further after this, “Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them: and whose soever sins ye retain, are retained” (John 20: 22-23); or: “whatsoever ye bind upon the earth, shall be bound in Heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosened in heaven” (Mt.18:18). Thus, it is the Church that binds, the Church that loosens; the Church, built upon the foundational cornerstone, Jesus Christ Himself (Eph 2:20), doth bind and loosen. Let both the binding and the loosening be feared: the loosening, in order not to fall under this again; the binding, in order not to remain forever in this condition. Therefore “Iniquities ensnare a man, and everyone is bound in the chains of his own sins,” says Wisdom (Prov 5:22); and except for Holy Church nowhere is it possible to receive the loosening.

33 posted on 09/25/2009 7:05:53 PM PDT by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers; Yudan; Kolokotronis
Ah, Yudan, never mind, I think Mr Rogers posted the passage you were probably talking about.

Actually, Mr Rogers, Augustine tended to wax allegorical and offer sometimes competing explanations of passages. He said this also:

"Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church." Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51
And later in life he even acknowledged that he had offered competing explanations of this passage:

"[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that 'the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.' This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: 'When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.' But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: 'Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church', to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God', and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not 'Thou art rock', but 'Thou art Peter'. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose."
Let the reader choose. This is why I don't think that exegetes can exclude Peter himself or Peter's Confession or even Christ from consideration as the "Rock" here. Granted, I think Augustine's second explanation is a little tortured and mangles the grammatical force of the passage in pursuit of a dubious allegory, but then again he's St. Augustine and I'm not. :)
34 posted on 09/25/2009 7:14:19 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
I’ve had spinal fusion surgery twice. Titanium was used. Does that count?

Wow. If it doesn't, it ought to, eh?

LOL, and having it done twice is surely enough to make anyone's eyes glow!

Have a great weekend BB.

35 posted on 09/25/2009 7:15:23 PM PDT by Col Freeper (FR is a smorgasbord of Conservative thoughts and ideas - dig in and enjoy it to its fullest!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Col Freeper

...and, I’ve had laser vision correction, so they, you know, could glow? I am human though and definitely not a Terminator! ;o)

Hope you have blessed weekend, too!


36 posted on 09/25/2009 7:25:41 PM PDT by boatbums (Not everything faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed unless it is faced.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Claud

Well, I’m not entirely certain that Mr. R and I would agree on everything...I’m not Protestant, I’m Orthodox.

I accept that +Peter was the first among, and frequent spokesman for, the 12.

What I don’t accept was that +Peter was more than primus inter pares. If he was, then why did he not issue that opinion of the elders at Jerusalem as testified to in Acts 15?

+James the Just did, because he was Bishop of Jerusalem. +Peter was visiting and deferred to he in whose house he was a guest.


37 posted on 09/25/2009 7:29:18 PM PDT by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Yudan
Well, Augustine is a complicated case. As I quoted above, he also expressed the opinion that Peter himself was the Rock.

Let's address this:

On “this stone” [petra], is on that which thou sayest: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” it is on this thy confession I build My Church. Wherefore the “thou art Peter”: it is from the “stone” [petra] that Peter [Petrus] is, and not from Peter [Petrus] that the “stone” [petra] is,

Why this would be taken as an argument against the Petrine Office is strange to me. Everyone admits (or at least should) that Peter is not *the sole Rock* but a Rock only in the sense of *sharing* the Rockhood of Christ. That is only obvious, and it is explicitly laid out in Ephesians 2:20. Christ the ultimate foundation, then the Apostles and prophets on top of that. So of course Peter's rock-like nature comes from Christ, and not Christ's from Peter. That's self-evident.

Therefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.” And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person, turn your attention to another place of the Scriptures

This one requires a bit of grammatical digging. At first blush it looks like Augustine is denying that the authority was given to Peter himself.

Upon close study, I don't think that's what's going on. Remember, Augustine just finished saying that Peter was "the representative for all the Church". So at the very least he receiving the authority *as its representative*. So I think that we can plausibly read an "only" in the middle of that line: Therefore it was not ONLY one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys”. Now look at the next line: "And that it was actually the Church that received this right, and not exclusively a single person,". Not *exclusively* a single person but the Church, which has Peter as its representative.

What I'm driving at here is I don't think Augustine is saying that Peter didn't receive the authority. He is just saying that Peter didn't receive the authority ALONE but received it *as the representative of the Universal Church*.

There's another quote from Sermon #295 that would come into play here, but I am having trouble finding a reliable version of it and the exact wording will be important. I want to get it right, so I'll keep looking.

38 posted on 09/25/2009 8:07:19 PM PDT by Claud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
***Where is Peter and I wrong? BVB*** Peter isn’t. And neither are you, in this context. Jesus is the petros and Peter is the petra. Jesus is the head of the Church, and Peter is the steward, given the keys to the kingdom while the King is away. The steward rules the kingdom in the Name of the King. Some rule well - Peter. Some rule ill - Denethor in Gondor comes to mind.

Mark, You have missed the thrust of this series. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Make Peter the rock the church is built on. From this segment;

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter's confession, nor the faith of Peter's confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.

 

Among the chorus of Evangelical and Protestant voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: "After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter" (Caragounis 1).

 

Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter's confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:

 

That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus' words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as "rock" — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)

Peter was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven as have all who believe. They have no authority on earth.

Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB

 

 

39 posted on 09/25/2009 8:45:53 PM PDT by Bobsvainbabblings
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Yudan; Claud

“Well, I’m not entirely certain that Mr. R and I would agree on everything...”

Shoot - my WIFE and I don’t agree on everything! That’s why I have 3 dogs. At any given time, at least one of them will agree with me. Particularly when I’m holding their food bowls...

My understanding (slim, since I admittedly don’t spend a lot of time reading Augustine) is that he considered Peter a type, and what he received, he did so on behalf of all bishops.

Some Protestants view it that way, some broaden it to all believers, and some restrict it to the Apostles. I tend to be one of those who broaden it a bit, and say Peter received it on behalf of all the church, to use as led by the Holy Spirit. I’m not dogmatic on it, apart from seeing no indication it meant Peter and Peter’s ‘successors’ alone. That just seems silly.


40 posted on 09/25/2009 9:24:58 PM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: All
The Petrine Fact, Part 6: And Upon This Rock (ground zero in the Petrine controversy)
The Petrine Fact, Part 5: Peter’s New Name
The Petrine Fact, Part 4: Peter, Paul, and James
The Petrine Fact, Part 3: Peter and the Twelve
The Petrine Fact, Parts 1 and 2; Peter and the Resurrection

Heart of the Church (St. Peter in Words and Stone)
The Early Church Fathers on The Primacy of Peter/Rome (Catholic/Orthodox Caucus)
Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)
Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes
Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes

41 posted on 09/25/2009 10:00:31 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

You made me laugh with the 3 dogs bit.

My point, and I think the point of most if not all Orthodox here, is we recognize +Peter and his successors as primus inter pares (at least if we were in communion), but do not accept that Jesus Christ bestowed upon +Peter any sort of specific authority over the entire Church to give orders and have them obeyed without question.

If he was in charge everywhere he went, he would have been the man speaking in Acts 15, for instance, instead of +James.


42 posted on 09/26/2009 5:38:10 AM PDT by Yudan (Living comes much easier once we admit we're dying.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Kolokotronis

“Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope”

How does the article do that? The question in the article is not “Vatican I heresy about the Pope,” the question is whether Peter is the rock. Fr. Stylianopoulos is quoted regarding whether Peter is the rock, not regarding the supremacy of the Pope or the relative prominence of Peter vs. others in the New Testament.

If people would only read what is written and not what they think is being said, the world would be a better place.


43 posted on 09/26/2009 7:18:03 AM PDT by letterman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Claud

“I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here.”

If you look sharp, you’ll notice Jimmy is not the author of this series. SDG is.


44 posted on 09/26/2009 7:18:03 AM PDT by letterman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeMind

“What’s funny is that almost immediately after Jesus says these words, he calls Peter “SATAN!”

What else is funny is that the article makes this very point. You are not reading the article, you are responding to what you think Catholics believe.


45 posted on 09/26/2009 7:18:04 AM PDT by letterman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Mr Rogers

“That is it. One sentence, and he doesn’t even say, ‘You are number one among the Apostles.’”

You are missing the NEXT sentence. :)


46 posted on 09/26/2009 7:18:46 AM PDT by letterman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Bobsvainbabblings

***Mark, You have missed the thrust of this series. It has one purpose and one purpose only. Make Peter the rock the church is built on. From this segment;

At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself. ***

What many people miss is that Jesus was a master verbal craftsman. He actually says both. Petros / petra. Jesus is the big rock, Peter is the little one. Jesus is the King, Peter is the steward. Jesus is Master, Peter is the servant.

***Your king might be away but mine is with me always through His Spirit. I have no need for a steward. Nor do you. BVB***

Well, I look at it this way: if Jesus wills it, who am I to argue?


47 posted on 09/26/2009 7:22:31 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Yudan

***My point, and I think the point of most if not all Orthodox here, is we recognize +Peter and his successors as primus inter pares (at least if we were in communion), but do not accept that Jesus Christ bestowed upon +Peter any sort of specific authority over the entire Church to give orders and have them obeyed without question.***

And, excepting some extreme bigotry from some nominal Catholics, we overall agree with that. First amongst equals, with each bishop having jurisdiction over his diocese. THAT is Church precedence.


48 posted on 09/26/2009 7:24:47 AM PDT by MarkBsnr ( I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: NYer


Do the writings of the "church fathers" trump or impugn the Holy Word of G-d ?
Matthew. 16:18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church,

One method of Hermeneutical understanding of Matthew 16:18
is to do a word study of all the scriptures which were then known
as the Holy Word of G-d when Yah'shua spoke these words.

This will allow one to understand that all of the Holy Word of G-d
was inspired by YHvH; the whole counsel of G-d.

The only conclusion that one can come to unless you are
predisposed to believe in man's tradition over the Holy Word of G-d
is that Yah'shua was speaking of himself as the "Rock "
e.g.



Genesis 49:24 But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed
[Or archers will attack...will shoot...will remain...will stay] supple,
because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob,
because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel,

Deuteronomy 32:3 I will proclaim the name of the LORD. Oh, praise the greatness of our God!

Deuteronomy 32:4 He is the Rock , his works are perfect, and all his ways are
just. A faithful God who does no wrong, upright and just is he.

Deuteronomy 32:15 ..... He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Saviour.

Deuteronomy 32:30 How could one man chase a thousand, or two put ten
thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, unless
the LORD had given them up?

Deuteronomy 32:31 For their rock is not like our Rock , as even our enemies concede

Deuteronomy 32:32 Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah.
Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.

1 Samuel 2:2 "There is no-one holy [Or no Holy One] like the LORD;
there is no-one besides you; there is no Rock like our God.

2 Samuel 22:2 He said: "The LORD is my Rock , my fortress and my deliverer;

2 Samuel 22:3 my God is my Rock , in whom I take refuge, my shield and the
horn [Horn here symbolises strength.] of my salvation.
He is my stronghold, my refuge and my saviour — from violent men you save me.

2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

2 Samuel 22:47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God, the Rock , my Saviour!

2 Samuel 23:3 The God of Israel spoke, the Rock of Israel said to me:
'When one rules over men in righteousness, when he rules in the fear of God,

Psalm 18:31 For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God?

Psalm 18:46 The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock ! Exalted be God my Saviour!

Psalm 19:14 May the words of my mouth and the meditation of my heart
be pleasing in your sight, O LORD, my Rock and my Redeemer.

Psalm 42:9 I say to God my Rock , "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?"

Psalm 78:35 They remembered that God was their Rock , that God Most High was their Redeemer.

Psalm 89:26 He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Saviour.'

Psalm 92:15 ..... "YHvH is upright; he is my Rock , and there is no wickedness in him."

Psalm 95:1 Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation.

Psalm 144:1 Praise be to the LORD my Rock , who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle.

Habakkuk 1:12 O LORD, are you not from everlasting? My God, my Holy
One, we will not die. O LORD, you have appointed them to
execute judgment; O Rock , you have ordained them to punish.

Peter himself refers to Yah'shua as the "rock" in
1 Peter 2:1-10
NAsbU 1 Peter 2:
1 Therefore, putting aside all malice and all deceit and hypocrisy and envy and all slander,

2 like newborn babies, long for the pure milk of the word, so that by it you may grow in respect to salvation,

3 if you have tasted the kindness of the Lord.

4 And coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God,

5 you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices
acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

6 For this is contained in Scripture: "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHOICE STONE, A PRECIOUS CORNER stone,
AND HE WHO BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."

7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED,
THIS BECAME THE VERY CORNER stone,"

8 and, "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word,
and to this doom they were also appointed.

9 But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God's OWN POSSESSION,
so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;

10 for you once were NOT A PEOPLE, but now you are THE PEOPLE OF GOD; you had NOT RECEIVED MERCY,
but now you have RECEIVED MERCY.

shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach

49 posted on 09/26/2009 7:34:24 AM PDT by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: letterman

Then lets look at the next sentence:

Matthew 16: “19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18: “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every charge may be established by the evidence of two or three witnesses. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

However, binding and loosing are NOT Peter’s prerogative alone, but a congregational function - “Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. AGAIN [he repeats himself using different words] I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. [And who has the authority?] For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.”

And in John 20:

On the evening of that day, the first day of the week, the doors being locked where the disciples were for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.” When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord.

Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”

Now Thomas, one of the Twelve, called the Twin, was not with them when Jesus came.”

Notice this isn’t given to Peter alone, nor to just the Apostles, for one of the Twelve wasn’t even there. It is given in conjunction with being sent by God to proclaim the Gospel, and with the reception of the Holy Spirit - whom ALL Christians receive, or they are not Christians.

So...how is Peter the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church?


50 posted on 09/26/2009 7:38:51 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I loathe the ground he slithers on!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-96 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson