Replies

Matthew 16 has Jesus calling Peter a rock. He then says to build on the rock. So the question remains, is a rock called Peter the same as the rock to build on.

Build what on? That's the question. No Catholic in the history of the Christian Church has ever alleged that Peter is the source and summit of one's Salvation. It is, and always has been Christ. Note that Matthew 16:18 is the only time in the Gospels that Jesus mentions the word "Church." The Church is not Jesus Christ, the two are different entities. The Church is an institution that Christ is in possession of - "I will build my Church." Salvation has always been "built" on the Word of God but His Church - whose job it is to protect the Word of God from misinterpretation or error - is "built" on Peter.

When Jesus called Peter a rock he was making a point. Calling a man a rock does not make it solid on which to build. Because later in Matthew 16...

Are you suggesting that of the three times God specifically has ever changed someone's name - and two of those times is when men were given the greatest positions of honor before the Lord - that Simon's name was changed to Peter as an example to the world of what not to do? The following passage where Christ calls Peter "satan" concerns itself with Christ training Peter. As it often does, his pride surfaces and Christ has to put it in its place for him, and being given the keys to the kingdom of heaven is no exception.

Furthermore, you're still ignoring the fact that Jesus Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter. You're story is a well-contrived attempt at getting around the establishment of the Church, but it is still completely illogical. If we are to believe your proposition, in effect we have the following situation:

Jesus: "Listen up, everyone. I alone am the rock upon which anything is built. Now, to illustrate my point, I am changing Simon's name to "rock" so that you will know that you cannot trust men. And to further illustrate my point, I am going to entrust onto this man that I am instructing you not to trust, the very keys to the kingdom of heaven."

Is that what you're suggesting happened?

The point is that Jesus is the Christ, and this is the rock on which you can build, because all other rocks shift from the things of God to the things of men.

The point is that if the Truth of God were left onto each and every individual for their own assesment and interpretation, there would be no clear understanding what was meant. If you need proof of this, look at the 30,000 different Protestant denominations - all using the same book - who believe vastly different things about Christ.

The point is that I, personally, have never seen Jesus Christ, I did not witness his actual death and resurrection 2000 years ago, nor was I there to actually hear them teach. Therefore, everything I think I know about Jesus Christ was handed unto me by another person. The point is: who's story do you trust? Before the Bible existed, how did the first Christians know what they were being told was true? The authority of the Apostles. With Peter as the Rock, we're not talking about salvation, we're talking about the means God gave the world to know what is true when 30,000 different groups disagree over what Jesus Christ's salvific mission was.

Lastly, give me one writing from the first Christians that states what you do here. You criticize Catholics for only being able to provide a letter from the mere 3rd Century supporting our position but you cannot provide anything from the early Christian Church for 1500 years supporting yours.

I set the Bible apart from the writings of uninspired men. If I could find writings that supported my views, what use would it be? Fallible men are still fallible, even when they agree with me.

You talk about the use of the word church as a physical institution and bureaucracy. It is not. In the Bible, the word church has two meanings. First, the individual congregations. Second, the Body of Christ, all those who are saved.

The Catholic Church is not a church at all, it is a synod: Those who walk in faith together. The Catholic Church is made up of churches and some members of the Catholic Church are members of the Body of Christ, but not all.

When the word church is used in the Bible to describe the Body of Christ, rather than individual churches, Jesus is always the head with the saints as the body. When used this way, the church represents only those who are saved.

I do admit that I do not understand the keys given to Peter. I'm OK with that. The keys are never mentioned again. If the keys are an integral part of the Gospel, why are they only mentioned in one of the Gospels? Why are the keys never mentioned as part of the Good News?

The power to bind and loose is given to all the apostles.

The keys do not affect how others treat Peter.

Galatians 2:11
[ Paul Opposes Peter ] When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Just because I do not understand the keys, does not mean I must to agree with someone who wrote about the keys in 220, so his organization could have worldly power.