[Claud]

I actually agree with the Catechism Of The Catholic Church tht the "Rock" associated with Peter was his confession of faith, not Peter the man.

As I've said repeatedly, that is an old old interpretation that goes back to the Church Fathers and is none the worse for wear. I agree with it too! But not *to the exclusion* of Peter being the Rock as well. It's both Peter and Peter's confession.

BTW do you wish to comment on whether Jesus had named Simon as Peter prior to his "confession of faith"?

Sure, I think your point is a quite valid one. The name could well have preceded the confession. But that opens up another can of worms for your position, I think. Namely, if the name "Peter" was given to Simon *before* his confession, then how could it be that the name refers *only* to Peter's confession, which hadn't even happened when the name was given?

There is no Scriptural evidence that Peter was given any special authority over the other Apostles. He was first chosen but equal. Nothing more.

Well, there we have a problem. I've been doing little else but citing that Scriptural evidence. :)

[OLD REGGIE]

Sure, I think your point is a quite valid one. The name could well have preceded the confession. But that opens up another can of worms for your position, I think. Namely, if the name "Peter" was given to Simon *before* his confession, then how could it be that the name refers *only* to Peter's confession, which hadn't even happened when the name was given?

I dunno. I guess you'll have to ask the "Authorities" what they meant when they wrote the Catechism. :-)

Maybe it meant "Rocky" as Augustine said????

In any event it certainly is not a fact that Peter was the rock.

Well, there we have a problem. I've been doing little else but citing that Scriptural evidence. :)

If I cited Scriptural evidence that Jesus called Peter "Satan" in a much more direct manner than your "rock" evidence would you be ready to address Peter as Satan?