Is the Bible God's Word? (Do you believe the Bible is the only word of God?)

I 'clarify' nothing, for the Word speaks for itself.

Haha. You didn't quote Scripture when I asked you to clarify. If you don't want to explain yourself, fine. I can't force you to explain yourself.

And the REST of the verses YOU posted: were THEY in context?

I don't think you understand, Elsie. You took what I wrote, which was in reference to a passage of one of Paul's letters and you took it out of context as if I was making an interpretation of a completely separate book, Acts. I suppose you did not do it on purpose or with any malevolent intent, so I am happy to let it drop. I was just asking that you be careful in how you quote what I say so as not to misquote or misrepresent what I write when you are responding. Let's just say all is forgotten and move on.

So, by believeing all that you've posted here, Christ drank His OWN blood and ate His OWN flesh with the disciples; right?

I think the passages are very clear and the meaning is obvious. Aren't we following your suggestion to take the most literal and obvious interpretation of the passages? He says repeatedly that the bread is His body and that the wine is His blood. What more can be said?

I could elaborate, and show you many examples of Early Church Fathers, and evidence of early Church gatherings, where the doctrine of transubstantiation can be witnessed in action. I could put the notion of transubstantion in its context in light of the Exodus and the foreshadowing of the Eucharistic celebration in the slaughtering of the sacrificial lamb in the passover meal. Etc. That would substantiate and valid that obvious and clear interpretation of what Christ says to His Apostles at the Last Supper, but is also unnecessary.

But one thing that may be clarifying is Scott Hahn's discussion of the "Fourth Cup" at the Passover meal, which is discussed in his book, The Lamb's Supper. Hahn was a Protestant minister who converted to Catholicism, and his defense of the transubstantiation is mindful of all the usual Protestant objections, as well as being completely Biblical.

For example, Hahn discusses this notion of the "Fourth Cup" -- that in the Passover meal for Jews, four cups of wine are drunk over the course of the meal, and the last cup is drunk just prior to the eating of the Passover lamb. But in the descriptions of the Last Supper in the NT, they never drink the Fourth Cup. The Fourth Cup is not drunk until Christ is crucified and fed the wine after He calls out in thirst, and after this, he exclaims that his mission is accomplished and dies -- becoming in effect the paschal lamb.

Of course, remember, in the Passover meal, there are clear directions given to the Jewish people. They must slaugher the lamb and place the blood upon the doors of their houses. But more than this, the lamb is to be cooked and eaten entirely, or else the penalty is death. Do you see the implication: The lamb must be eaten, or the penalty is death. It's all there in Exodus, and the OT reveals the same command Christ gives us and which is revealed in the NT: if we wish to live, if we wish to have eternal life, then we must eat his flesh and drink his blood. To me, this is crystal clear; it's hard to think anyone could read the Bible otherwise.

For further reading beyond Hahn's book, there is also a nice introduction called Catholics and the Eucharist: A Scriptural Introduction by Stephen B. Clark. For a dense and scholarly history, I would suggest The Hidden Manna: A Theology of the Eucharist by Fr. James O'Connor. These would give you a good basis to really understand the Biblical and historical basis for the Catholic perspective on transubstantiation.

For an early paper by Hahn on the "Fourth Cup," which he wrote before the book was written, you can find this paper on-line: In Search of the Fourth Cup.

Please clarify, for Scripture points out otherwise.

Well, the Bible is not so obvious after all, then. There are varying interpretations, and we need clarification on what they mean. How is it that we arrive at such variance in our interpretaton when we read from the same book and both of us claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit? In fact, during Mass, we pray and ask for guidance to discern the Gospels -- making the sign of the cross over our mind, mouth and heart. So, how can we be at such odds if the Bible is so obvious in its meaning? This does not bode well for Sola Scriptura. This insight is what lead Marcus Grodi to the Catholic Church. He is a former Protestant minister, and writes of his conversation in a chapter, "What is Truth?", which can be found in the book Surprised by Truth: 11 Converts Give the Biblical and Historical Reasons for Becoming Catholic edited by Patrick Madrid.

Here is a passage from Grodi's chapter that illustrates my point quite well:

I reflected often on Proverbs 3:5-6: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not unto your own understanding; in all of your ways acknowledge him and he will direct your paths." This exhortation both haunted and consoled me as I grappled with the doctrinal confusion and procedural chaos within Protestantism.

The Reformers had championed the notion of private interpretation of the Bible by the individual, a position I began to feel increasingly uncomfortable with, in light of Proverbs 3:5-6.

Bible-believing Protestants claim they DO follow the teaching in this passage by seeking the Lord's guidance. The problem is that there are thousands of different paths of doctrine down which Protestants feel the Lord is directing them to travel. And these doctrines vary wildly according to denomination.

I struggled with the questions, "How do I know what God's will is for my life and for the people in my congregation? How can I be sure that what I'm preaching is correct? How do I KNOW what truth is?" In light of the doctrinal mayhem that exists within Protestantism--each denomination staking out for itself doctrine based on the interpretations of the man who founded it--the standard Protestant boast, "I believe only what the Bible says," began to ring hollow. I professed to look to the Bible alone to determine the truth, but the Reformed doctrines I inherited from John Calvin and the Puritans clashed in many respects with those held by my Lutheran, Baptist, and Anglican friends.

In the Gospels, Jesus explained what it means to be a true disiciple (cf. Matt. 19:16-23). Its more than reading the Bible, or having your name in a church membership roster, or regularly attending Sunday services. These things, good though they are, by themselves don't make one a true disciple of Jesus. Being a disciple of Jesus Christ means making a radical commitment to love and obey the Lord in every word, action, and attitude, and to strive to radiate his love to others. The true disciple, Jesus said, is willing to give up everything, even his own life, if necessary, to follow the Lord....

I could no longer remain a Protestant. To do so meant I must deny Christ's promises to guide and protect his Church and to send the Holy Spirit to lead it into all truth (cf. Matt. 16:18-19, 18:18, 28:20; John 14:16, 25, 16:13). (pp. 36-37, 53).

Quite a remarkable witness from Grodi. And think of what he had to give up to convert -- essentially his job, all of his wages, most of his friends. Must take great courage.

More about Peter the rock in a moment.

I guess we'll have to disagree.

That would be fine, but again this state of affairs supports my argument if we cannot reach an agreement on what Scripture is saying. We are both looking at the same passages in Scripture. If that is not enough for us to come to some agreement, then this suggests Scripture is not enough for us to arrive at the true interpretation. In my case, I turn to the authority of Sacred Tradition to clarify the meaning of the Scripture, and that is what the Bible itself says to do (I say, in accordance with Sacred Tradition). What is your authority? You cannot appeal to the Holy Spirit, because I claim the same source and yet we cannot agree. So what is your authority, then? How can you demonstrate that your interpretation is not demonic, for example?

Historically in Christianity, the option has been to look to see what the Early Church Fathers had to say. Even Protestants cite the Church Fathers.

Well, if you look at the writings of the Early Church Fathers, you will see references to Apostolic Succession, to the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, and to the primacy and the authority of Rome. Here are some references to that effect:

On Apostolic Succession, see for instance: Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3; Tertullian's Prescription Against Heresey, Chapter 23; and Origen's First Principles, Book 1, Preface.

On the role of the bishops as guardians of the Deposit of Faith, see, for instance: Ignatius' Letter to the Smyrnaeans, Chapters 8-9; Ignatius' Letter to the Philadelphians, Introduction and Chapters 1-4; and Ignatius' Letter to the Magnesians, Chapter 7.

On the primacy and authority of Rome, see, for instance: 1 Clement, Chapters 1, 56, 58, 59; Ignatius' Letter to the Romans, introduction and Chapter 3; Irenaeus' Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3, no. 2; Tertullian's Prescription Against Heretics, Chapter 22; and Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 24, no. 9.

The collective weight of these references makes clear the fact that the early Church understood itself as having a hierarchy which was central to maintaining the integrity of the Faith. Nowhere do we see any indication that the early followers of Christ disregarded them invalid as a rule of faith. Quite the contrary, we see in those passages that the Church, from its very inception, saw its power to teach grounded in an inseparable combination of Scripture and Apostolic Tradition--with both being authoritatively taught and interpreted by the teaching Magisterium of the Church, with the Bishop of Rome at its head.

To say that the early Church believed in the notion of "the Bible alone" would be analogous to saying that men and women today could entertain the thought that our civil laws could function without Congress to legislate them, without courts to interpret them and without police to enforce them. All we would need is a sufficient supply of legal volumes in every household so that each citizen could determine for himself how to understand and apply any given law. Such an assertion is absurd, of course, as no one could possibly expect civil laws to function in this manner. The consequence of such a state of affairs would undoubtably be total anarchy.

How much more absurd, then, is it to contend that the bible could function on its own and apart from the Church which wrote it? It is precisely that Church--and not just any Christian--who alone possesses the divinely given authority to interpret it correctly, as well as to legislate matters involving the conduct of its members. Were this not the case, the situation on any level--local, regional or global--would quickly devolve into spiritual anarchy, wherein each and every Christian could formulate a theological system and develop a moral code based simply upon his own private interpretation of Scripture.

Has not history actually seen precisely this result since the 16th century, when the so-called Reformation occurred? In fact, an examination of the state of affairs in Europe immediately following the genesis of the Reformation--particularly in Germany--will demonstrate that the direct result of Reformation teaching was both spiritual and social disorder. See Msgr. Patrick F. O'Hare, LL.D., The Facts About Luther (Cincinnati: Pustet, 1916; Rockford, IL: TAN, 1987), pp. 215-255.

Luther himself bemoaned the fact that, "Unfortunately, it is our daily experience that now under the Gospel [his] the people entertain greater and bitterer hatred and envy and are worse with their avarice and money-grabbing than before under the Papacy." -- Walch, XIII, 2195, as quoted in The Facts About Luther, p. 15. Enough said for now, and yes, I know I am still teasing you with a respond to the issue of Peter. Yes, it is coming.

Please clarify, for Scripture points out otherwise.

You are being coy. You know what the Scripture says: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

I know that many Protestants have bent over backwards trying to refute the Catholic interpretation of this passage. But the fact of the matter is, the Catholic interpretation is the correct one. As testament to this fact, we can again turn to the Early Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the Apostles in time, culture and theological background. They clearly understood that Jesus promises to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

The evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16:18. A challenge you to find even one Early Church Father who contradicts this interpretation. Good luck.

Ampu,

There are still a couple statements you have made that I had intented to address, and I will go ahead and do that. But of course I respect if you prefer not to continue with the discussion. I will do so even if it is simply to clarify my position to myself, or to anyone who might be listening over our shoulders. Do not feel obligated to respond, if you prefer not to.

In any case, there are two important issues you raise which I would like to address. The first is the issue you raise about the Church's role in the Canonization of Scripture. I think we agree on this, but I think the point is an important one, so I want to be clear about my position on this. Also, in a separate post subsequent to this one, I would also like to address the concern you raised about the Eastern Orthodox Church -- a very important and admittedly thorny issue for us Catholics. But I will deal with that later. The issue I will address here is the Bible, and the Canonization of Scripture by the Catholic Church -- an issue that has relevance to this discussion because I believe, and the Church holds, that it undermines the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

An historical fact which proves extremely inconvenient for the Protestant is the fact that the canon of the Bible--the authoritative list of exactly which books are part of inspired Scripture--was not settled and fixed until the end of the 4th century. Until that time, there was much disagreement over which Biblical writers were considered inspired and Apostolic in origin. The Biblical canon varied from place to place: some lists contained books that were later defined as non-canonical, while other lists failed to include books which were later defined as canonical. For example, there were Early Christian writings which were considered by some to be inspired and Apostolic and which were actually read in Christian public worship, but which were later omitted from the New Testament canon. These include The Shepherd of Hermas, The Epistle of Barnabas, and The Didache, among others.

It was not until the Synod of Rome (382) and the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) that we find a definitive list of canonical books being drawn up, and each of these Councils acknowledged the very same list of books. From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later

Once again, there are two fundamental questions for which one cannot provide answers that are consonant with Sola Scriptura: (a) Who or what served as the final Christian authority up to the time that the New Testament's canon was identified? (b) And if there was a final authority that the Protestant recognizes before the establishment of the canon, on what basis did that authority cease being final once the Bible's canon was established?

Since the Bible did not come with an inspired table of contents, the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates yet another dilemma: How can only know with certainty which books belong to the Bible--specifically, in the New Testament? The unadulterated fact is that one cannot know unless there is an authority outside the Bible which can tell him. Moreover, this authority must, by necessity, be infallible, since the possibility of error in identifying the canon of the bible would mean that all believers run the risk of having the wrong books in their Bibles, a situation which would vitiate Sola Scriptura. But if there is such an infallible authority, then the doctrine of Sola Scriptura crumbles.

Another historical fact very difficult to reconcile with the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is that it was none other than the Catholic Church which eventually identified and ratified the canon of the Bible. The three councils mentioned above were all councils of this Church. The Catholic Church gave its final, definitive, infallible definition of the Biblical canon at the Council of Trent in 1546--naming the very same list of 73 books that had been included in the 4th century. If that Catholic Church is able, then, to render an authoritative and infallible decision concerning such an important matter as which books belong to the Bible, then upon what basis would a person question its authority on other matters of faith and morals?

Protestants should at least concede a point which Martin Luther, their religion's founder, also conceded, namely, that the Catholic Church safeguarded and identified the Bible: "We are obliged to yield many things to the Catholics--(for example), that they possess the Word of God, which we received from them; otherwise, we should have known nothing at all about it."

...no other rock...

Elsie, I must apologize because I actually missed your post with the quotations on "the rock." When I replied, I replied to a later post, where you made brief mention of Peter as the rock, but the whole tone was negative and the meaning was ambiguous. But now I see that you did quote Scripture, so I am now responding to that post of yours.

Again, I refer you to my recent post on the Early Church Fathers. There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that Peter in Matt. 16:19 is the rock in question. The additional quotes you mention do not refute this interpretation, as far as I can tell.

If we look at the passages of Scripture you cite, they do state in various ways, and from various parts of Scripture, that the Lord is Our rock. And indeed He is! But this does not contradict the Lord's passing of his authority along to Peter, because by calling Peter rock, the Lord was doing precisely that -- endowing Peter with His authority to teach the Word on the earth after his ascension into heaven -- in order to found the Church that will represent Him on earth.

The Lord is the original rock, and by calling Peter the rock, He is passing that solid foundation of authority to Peter, which in turn He has passed down through the Church in history. And this Church forms the Mystical Body of Christ -- indeed, an unshakeable and firm foundation. The rock.

This idea that the Church is the mystical body of Christ, and that all its members are guided and directed by Christ as the head, is set forth by St. Paul in various passages, more especially in Ephesians 4:4-13 (cf. John 15:5-8). The doctrine may be summarized as follows:

The members of the Church are bound together by a supernatural life communicated to them by Christ through the sacraments (John 15:5). Christ is the center and source of life to Whom all are united, and Who endows each one with gifts fitting him for his position in the body (John 15:7-12). These graces, through which each is equipped for his work, form it into an organized whole, whose parts are knit together as though by a system of ligaments and joints (John 15:16); Colossians 2:19).

Through them, too, the Church has its growth and increase, growing in extension as it spreads through the world, and intensively as the individual Christian develops in himself the likeness of Christ (John 15:13-15).

In virtue of this union the Church is the fulness or complement (pleroma) of Christ (Ephesians 1:23). It forms one whole with Him; and the Apostle even speaks of the Church as "Christ" (1 Corinthians 12:12).

This union between head and members is conserved and nourished by the Holy Eucharist. Though this sacrament our incorporation into the Body of Christ is alike outwardly symbolized and inwardly actualized: "We being many are one bread, one body; for we all partake of the one bread" (1 Corinthians 10:17).

So, you see, it is not an either/or issue. You are creating a false choice by saying that either the Lord is the rock OR Peter is the rock. But the valid interpretation is that the Lord is the rock, and by the authority of the Lord, so too Peter becomes the rock. And by way of Peter, via the Lord's command, all Christians in the Church form the Mystical Body of Christ, and so also come to participate in the rock of the Lord.

But, with that all said, Matthew 16:18 is not the only verse in Scripture which supports the doctrine of Petrine Primacy.

It is very important to realize that none of these verses explicitly say “The doctrine of Petrine Primacy is true” or that “Peter was the first pope and the Catholics are right”. However, when taken as whole, all of these verses clearly show that Peter enjoyed a special place among the Apostles, and that it was him Jesus looked to to lead and and strengthen them.

Peter speaks for all of the Apostles

In several places in the Scriptures, Peter speaks for all of the Apostles – the others are not consulted, or they simply assumed to agree with Peter. This shows that Peter was the leader of the group.

Matthew 19:27, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, 12:41, John 6:69

“Peter and his companions”

When describing the Apostles, the Gospel writers often chose not to list them individually by name or even write something like “the followers of Jesus” but rather wrote “Peter and his companions”. Clearly, one does not describe a group of followers of another man as “Peter and his companions” unless Peter is the leader.

Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 3:37

Peter heads every list

When the Gospel writers do give a list of the Apostles by name, Peter's name heads every single list. This is far more than just a co-incidence, especially when taken with all the other evidence.

Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13

Peter leads the meeting to replace Judas

When the Apostles decide to replace Judas in Acts 1:13-26 it is Peter who is clearly “in charge” and leading or chairing the meeting.

Peter's name outnumbers any other Apostle's

The names of all the Apostles appear in Scripture – what many people do not realize is that Peter's name appears 195 times in Scripture, which is more than all the rest put together. If Peter is no more important than them, why is his name mentioned so many times more?

The Keys of the Kingdom

In Matthew 16:19 (immediately after the “On this rock” verse) Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom and the power to bind and loose. This is an example of typology – the type being referenced here is the prime minister of the old Judaic Kingdom (referenced in Isaiah 19:20-22.) The keys to the kingdom were a symbolic representation of the authority to make pronouncements and judgments in the King's name (the authority to “bind and loose”). The fact the same phrase is used in both passages of Scripture makes the comparison clear. Peter is being appointed as the prime minister of the new Kingdom – an office which has the authority to speak for the King (Jesus). It is necessary to understand that the Petrine office of the prime minister of the kingdom does not give him authority to “dictate” to Heaven – the authority itself remains with God, but it is exercised on earth through the office of the pope. And while the pope in theory has the authority to do anything, he is protected from error by the infallibility of his office.

Jesus prays for Peter so that he may strengthen others

In Luke 22:32 Jesus says that He has prayed for Peter so that Peter may be able to support the other Apostles – He does not pray for them as separate individuals. This clearly shows that Peter is viewed by Jesus as the head of the Apostles, and as representing the entire Church.

Peter is appointed shepherd of Christ's flock

In John 21:17 Jesus tells Peter to feed his sheep – appointing him shepherd of His flock. This is a command given specifically to Peter, and not the rest of the Apostles. We are all required to carry out spiritual and corporal works of mercy, but the Jesus' words make it very clear that Peter had a specific and special responsibility.

The angel specifically mentions Peter

When Mary Magdalena goes to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, she sees an angel who tells her to go and tell Jesus' followers that He is risen. In Mark 16:7 the angel makes a very special point of telling Mary to inform Peter; his name is the only name mentioned.

Jesus appears to Peter

In Luke 24:34 the Apostles say that Jesus has appeared to Simon [Peter] – they do not mention any other appearances, nor that they have seen Him themselves. Either the appearance to Peter was the only one which they were aware of, or they recognized that it was the only one worth mentioning. In either case, the importance of Peter is clear.

Peter leads the early Church

In the book of Acts there are many instances of Peter taking the initiative and being the first person to undertake a number of tasks or responsibilities. While individuals might take the initiative here and there, only the recognized and authentic leader of the Church would undertake all of these “firsts”;

Acts 2:14 – Peter leads the Apostles in preaching on Pentecost

Acts 2:41 – Peter received the first converts

Acts 3:6-7 – Peter performed the first miracle at Pentecost

Acts 5:1-11 – Peter inflicted the first punishment (Ananias & Saphira)

Acts 8:21 – Peter excommunicated the first heretic, Simon Magnus

Acts 15:7 – Peter led the first council in Jerusalem

Acts 15:9 – Peter pronounces the first dogmatic decision

Peter is given divine revelation

Peter is given divine revelation – and not just any revelation, but the revelation that Gentiles are to be allowed into the Church – in Acts 10:44-46. This is such a significant and important aspect of Christianity – its universal scope – that it underscores Peter's authority.

Saint Paul visits Peter

In Galatians 1:18 Saint Paul writes that he visited Cephas [Peter] when he was in Jerusalem – why would he do this if Peter did not have some sort of authority? He specifically says that he saw no other Apostles, except James the brother of the Lord (who was the Bishop of Jerusalem – so it would be logical for him, as a matter of courtesy, to visit him). But why does Paul meet specifically with Peter and no-one else? The logical answer is that Peter has an authority which the other Apostles do not.

Very solid Biblical evidence. Put these together with the passages from the Early Church Fathers, and it is an air tight case for Petrine Primacy.

Haha. You didn't quote Scripture when I asked you to clarify.

I guess that about 3 pages of SCRITPURE was to much to give you to begin with.

And, if I 'clarify' ONE verse, you claim it's out of context.

Ok; I see your point.

You win.

What more can be said?

You probablly have a LOT to say.

Let's start with how a Jewish, yearly REMINDER of GOD's saving providence, celebrated ONCE a year, in accordance to the RULES GOD set in place got tranmorgrified into an 'every time you enter the doors' ritual.

"Behold - the Lamb of GOD, which takes away the sin of the world."

You know what the Scripture says: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

I 'know' that is ewhat your church believes, and by leaving out the PREVIOUS verse someone could be fooled into accepting it.

You've provided 'proof' in all the writings of men explaining your organizations position.

If a reading of Scripture cannot convince you that the REVELATION that "Jesus of Nazareth is the CHRIST" is the 'rock' upon which the church is to be built; instead of PETER, then what more can be said?

From this point on, there is in practice no dispute about the canon of the Bible, the only exception being the so-called Protestant Reformers, who entered upon the scene in 1517, an unbelievable 11 centuries later

After your organization had suffered MANY problems!

Evidently the self-correcting traditions of the Father were of little value.

There is a clear and overwhelming consensus that Peter in Matt. 16:19 is the rock in question.

Consenus does not prove truth.

But this does not contradict the Lord's passing of his authority along to Peter, because by calling Peter rock, the Lord was doing precisely that -- endowing Peter with His authority to teach the Word on the earth after his ascension into heaven -- in order to found the Church that will represent Him on earth.

Again, sorry, but Simon was alREADY known as PETER before Christ said that to him.

You DID see those verses; right?

Very solid Biblical evidence. Put these together with the passages from the Early Church Fathers, and it is an air tight case for Petrine Primacy.

O... K...

Galatians 2:11-14
11. When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.
12. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group.
13. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
14. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

Are you referring to those that claim baptism for infants?

As a former mormon, I would like for you to provide a factual answer to this question:

When given the "choice" to be baptized into the mormon church, how many mormon-raised eight-year-olds choose not to?

In MY experience the answer would be none, zero, zilch...which leads to the question, "why not baptize as infants?"

If mormon children are truly given "free agency" to choose mormon membership, why not boost the baptism age to 18, after a course in ALL religious belief?

Placemark

I guess that about 3 pages of SCRITPURE was to much to give you to begin with.

And, if I 'clarify' ONE verse, you claim it's out of context.

Ok; I see your point.

You win.

As I stated in a subsequent post, I had somehow missed reading your long list of quotations regarding Peter. Hence, the misunderstanding. I apologized for the error, so perhaps we can move on.

Also, when I was asking you not to quote me out of context, I was not talking about using passages from the Bible out of context. I was talking about your having taken my personal commentary out of context. You pulled out one of my comments on 1 Thessalonians and quoted it in a way that made it seem as if I was commenting on Acts, which made my logic appear to be flawed, when in fact it was not. I am assuming this was not intentional or malevolent, and am willing to let the matter drop. So, let's not belabor the point.

I haven't been playing games with you in any way, and have been sincere in my attempt to address the issues you raise -- and notice doing so almost exclusively by reference to Scripture, making only additional reference to the Early Church Fathers. The latter is a legitimate method of validation since the canon of Scripture was decided in large part by looking to the Early Church Fathers for authentification. The Bible didn't just drop out of thin air. The Church had to decide what the canon would be, and most Protestants acknowlege the role of the Church in establishing the canon. So, I think I have been pretty fair in my line of argument, given that the point of the conversation initially was to refute Sola Scriptura, and I have been doing that almost exclusively by reference to Scripture, primarily out of respect for your worldview on the matter.

I 'know' that is ewhat your church believes, and by leaving out the PREVIOUS verse someone could be fooled into accepting it.

There is no slight of hand here in my responses. I am not selectively quoting anything. On the contrary, I am attempting to quote Scripture in its proper context. We just disagree on what constitutes the proper context of interpretation. But let's take a look at that passage, because I am not dodging its context. In fact, looking at that passage in context validates the Catholic interpretation.

Matthew 16: 13-17

13When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"

16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,[b] the Son of the living God."

17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d] will not overcome it.[e] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

Looking at this passage in context, we can see plainly and clearly that, by referencing Peter's name, which means "rock," he says that He will make Peter the rock or foundation of His Church. While Protestants may claim there may be ambiguity regarding who is referred to by "this rock," the ambiguity is resolved in the subsequent passage, where Christ clearly gives Peter the keys to the Kingdom -- an obvious gesture by which Our Lord passed along His authority to Peter.

As I mentioned previously, I also wish to comment on the Eastern Orthodox Church, and how as a Roman Catholic, I reconcile this schism in the Church. Why the Roman Catholic Church rather than the Eastern Orthodox Church?

First of all, let me say that I have great respect for the Eastern Orthodox Church. We have much more in common than we have differences, and I think we are on the brink of a true reconciliation and reunion between the Roman and Orthodox Churches. Surely, this is God's will, that this schism be healed. Roman Catholics are permitted, for example, to attend Eastern Orthodox services. The Churches have both repealed their ex-communication of one another, etc. There is a lot of healing going on.

Nevertheless, at risk of opening wounds rather than healing them, I must speak to why I choose Roman Catholicism as the true Church, as opposed to the Eastern Orthodox. The reason is this: There is a fatal flaw in Orthodoxy's account of how we can know what God has revealed. As Fr. Brian W. Harrison, O.S., has demonstrated, we can use a series of several simple propositions to argue that Eastern Orthodoxy's account of how the Church transmits revelation is vitiated by a circular argument, and so cannot be true.

First, if God has given the gift of infallibility to his Church, there must be some identifiable authority or agent within her capable of exercising that gift. Now, Catholics believe that the College of Bishops—the successors of the apostles, led by the pope, the successor of St. Peter—constitute that authority. The bishops can exercise the gift in several ways (as explained by Vatican Council II in article 25 of Lumen Gentium, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). The whole group (the College of Bishops) can teach infallibly, either gathered together in councils that its leader, the pope, recognizes as "ecumenical" (that is, sufficiently representative of the whole Church), or even, under certain conditions, while remaining dispersed around the world. Finally, the pope, even when speaking alone, is guaranteed the charism of infallibility in his most formal (ex cathedra) pronouncements.

Now, what does the Eastern Orthodox communion see as the agent of the infallibility it claims for itself? In fact, it recognizes only one of those forms of teaching mentioned above. Let us highlight this answer:

Proposition 1: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of ecumenical councils.

However, does this mean that the Orthodox recognize the authority of all the same ecumenical councils that we Catholics recognize? Unfortunately not. While our separated Eastern brethren claim that, in principle, any ecumenical council between Pentecost and Judgment Day would enjoy the charism of being able to issue infallible dogmatic decrees, they recognize as ecumenical only the first seven councils: those that took place in the first Christian millennium, before the rupture between East and West. Indeed, even though they claim theirs is the true church, since that medieval split they have never attempted to convoke and celebrate any ecumenical council of their own. For they still recognize as a valid part of ancient tradition the role of the See of Peter as enjoying a certain primacy—at least of honor or precedence—over the other ancient centers of Christianity (Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria).

Thus, mainstream Orthodox theologians, as I understand them, would say that for a thousand years we have had a situation of interrupted infallibility. The interruption, they would maintain, has been caused above all by the "ambition," "intransigence" or " hubris" of the bishops of the See of Peter, who are said to have overstepped the due limits of the modest primacy bestowed on them by Jesus. However (it is said), once the Roman pontiffs come to recognize this grave error and renounce their claims to personal infallibility and universal jurisdiction over all Christians, why, then the deplorable schism will at last be healed! The whole Church, with due representation for both East and West, will once again be able to hold infallible ecumenical councils.

This position, however, turns out to involve serious problems. Our separated Eastern brethren acknowledge that any truly ecumenical council will need to include not only their own representatives, but also those of the bishop of Rome, whose confirmation of its decrees would in due course be needed, as it was in those first seven councils of antiquity. Well, so far so good. But does this mean the Orthodox acknowledge that the pope’s confirmation of a council in which they participate will not only be necessary, but also sufficient, as a condition for them to recognize it as ecumenical? Unfortunately, the answer here is again in the negative. And it is the Easterners’ own history which has, as we shall now see, reshaped their theology on this point during the last half-millennium.

After the East-West rupture that hardened as a result of the mutual excommunications of 1054 and the brutal sack of Constantinople by Latin crusaders in 1204, two ecumenical councils were convoked by Rome for the purpose of healing the breach. They were held at Lyons in 1274 and at Florence in 1439, with Eastern Christendom being duly represented at both councils by bishops and theologians sent from Constantinople. And in both cases these representatives ended up fully accepting, on behalf of the Eastern Church, the decrees, promulgated by these councils, that professed the true, divinely ordained jurisdiction of the successors of Peter over the universal Church of Christ—something much more than a mere primacy of honor. And these decrees were of course confirmed by the then-reigning popes.

Why, then, did neither of these two councils effectively put an end to the tragic and long-standing schism? Basically because the Eastern delegations to Lyons and Florence, upon returning to their own constituency, were unable to make the newly decreed union take practical effect. At Constantinople, the nerve-center of the Byzantine Empire, an attitude of deep suspicion and even passionate hostility toward the Latin "enemies" was still strongly ingrained in the hearts and minds of many citizens—great and small alike. The result was that politics and public opinion trumped the conciliar agreements. The Eastern Christians as a whole simply refused to acquiesce in the idea of allowing that man—the widely feared and detested bishop of Rome—to hold any kind of real jurisdiction over their spiritual and ecclesiastical affairs.

As a result, in order to justify their continued separation from Rome, the Orthodox have had to nuance their position on the infallibility of ecumenical councils. They have had to maintain that the participation in a given council of bishops representing the whole Church and the confirmation of their decrees by the pope, while undoubtedly necessary, is still not sufficient to guarantee the true ecumenical status of that council. For over and above the fulfillment of those conditions, it is also necessary (so they have told us in recent centuries) for the faithful as a whole in both East and West—not just the pope and bishops or even the entire clergy—to accept that council’s decrees as expressing the true faith. So the simple Proposition 1 set out above is now modified as follows:

Proposition 2: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole Church.

In the post-Enlightenment Western world, wherein opposition to clericalism (real or imagined), and the ideas of democracy and popular sovereignty have long enjoyed great popularity, this Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology, with its emphasis on the role of the laity, will naturally sound attractive to many. But on further examination a fatal logical flaw in the Orthodox theory comes to light.

Let’s take a closer look here. If the crucial factor in deciding whether a given council’s teaching is infallible or not depends on how it is received by the rank-and-file membership of "the whole Church," then it becomes critically important to know who, precisely, constitutes "the whole Church." How are her members to be identified? Who has voting rights, as it were, in this monumental communal decision?

In answer to this question, our Eastern friends cannot (and do not) say that for these purposes the whole Church consists of all who profess faith in Christ, or all the baptized. For on that basis the Orthodox would rule out as "un-ecumenical" (and thus, non-infallible) not only the second-millennium councils recognized by Rome and the Catholic Church, but also the seven great councils of the first millennium which they themselves recognize in common with Catholics! For each one of those councils was rejected by significant minorities of baptized persons (Arians, Monophysites, Nestorians, etc.) who professed faith in Christ.

It is equally clear that the Orthodox cannot define the whole Church as Catholics do, namely, as consisting of all those Christians who are in communion with Rome, the See of Peter, the "Rock." For they themselves have not been in communion with Rome since medieval times. Could they perhaps try to define the whole Church in terms of communion with their own patriarchal See of Constantinople? No way. As far as I know, no Orthodox theologian has ever dared to claim that the need for union with Constantinople is part of revelation or divine law. For not only was this see itself in heresy at certain periods of antiquity, it did not even exist for several centuries after revelation was completed in the apostolic age.

In short, any Orthodox attempt to define the whole Church in terms of some empirically verifiable criterion will land our Eastern brethren in impossible absurdities. So the only other course open to them, logically, is the one they have now in fact adopted: They attempt to define the whole Church in terms of an empirically unverifiable criterion, namely, adherence to true, orthodox doctrine. Unlike cities, sayings, and sacraments, doctrinal orthodoxy cannot be recognized as such by any of the five senses. It cannot, as such, be seen, touched, or heard—only discerned in the mind and heart. Thus, if we ask the Orthodox why do they not recognize as constituent parts of the whole Church those baptized, Christ-professing Aryans, Nestorians, etc., who rejected one or more of the seven first-millennium councils, they will respond, "Why, because they were unorthodox, of course! They lapsed into heresy while we—and up till that time the Latin Church under Rome as well—maintained the true faith."

Now that the Orthodox position regarding infallibility and ecumenical councils has been further specified, we can reformulate it a third time, replacing the expression "the whole Church" at the end of Proposition 2 with another which clarifies what is meant by those three words:

Proposition 3: Infallibility is to be recognized in the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

But here, I am afraid, we come face to face with the fundamental logical flaw in the whole Eastern Orthodox account of how we can know what—if anything—God has revealed to mankind. Since Christ founded his Church on earth to be a visible community, we cannot define her in terms of an invisible criterion—possession of doctrinal truth—without falling into absurdity. The flaw this involves is that of a circular argument—including the term to be defined within the definition itself. This results in a mere tautology: a repetitive proposition that provides no information at all.

We can see this more clearly if we remember that the whole purpose of an infallible church authority is simply to enable Christians to distinguish revealed truth clearly and certainly from falsehood and heresy. Keeping this in mind, we can formulate once again the Eastern Orthodox proposition, rewording Proposition 3 above so as to unpack the word infallible, spelling out its meaning and function:

Proposition 4: Christians can come to know with certainty what is true doctrine by recognizing the solemn doctrinal decisions of those councils which are not only papally confirmed as ecumenical, but which are also subsequently accepted as such by the whole community of those Christians who adhere to true doctrine.

The words italicized above lay bare the underlying circularity—the tautology—that vitiates the logical coherence of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. We want to know how to identify true Christian doctrine with certainty, but the proffered solution to our problem assumes we already know the very thing we are seeking to discover. We are being told, "To discover what is true Christian doctrine, you must pay heed the teaching of those who adhere to true Christian doctrine"!

Reference:
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2008/0810fea3.asp

It has been called The Way at other times Nazarenes and other the Called Out, the Gathering or Assembly, some others call us the Bride.

So does this church of yours say that babies should be baptized or not?

Can't be of much worth if no one is willing to talk about it.