No special mention of Peter?
If Peter is the rock, why is he not also Satan? Matthew 16:23 He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
The story of Peter's confession is told in three of the Gospels (see Mark 8, Luke 9). Only one telling mentioned the rock and keys. So is the important thing to remember the confession or the keys?
In Matthew 7 (before Peter's confession), Jesus has already explained the concept of the rock to the Apostles. They would have remembered the lesson of building on the rock and they would not have assumed the rock was Peter.
We can see this is true because in Mark 9:34 (after Peter's confession) "they had argued with one another about who was the greatest." This was after the keys and rock comment. The Apostles understood the concept of the rock and it was not Peter.
Using rationalizations for earthly power is a perversion of the Gospel. Reading the creeds, not one mentions Peter or the office of Pope. No where is the Bible does it mention a Successor, or even the possibility of a successor. Human rationalizations for why there has to be a successor mean nothing.
Oh no. Human rationalizations for earthly power are just FINE!
Give me a break. Anybody who thinks John the XXIII through BenXVI are interested in earthly power is delusional.
So is Jesus really a cornerstone? Is He granite or gneiss or what?
How can we say it more explicitly? It's a metaphor, a figure of speech. When Peter is called the Rock on which the Church is built, Jesus presents himself as the builder. Who is the builder in the Ephesians metaphor? -- it's a different analogy.
There is no intellectual problem in saying "In THIS way, Peter is a rock; in THAT he isn't, but his faith is, or Jesus is." And that's essentially what the CCC does. The Ephesians text doesn't vitiate the Matthew text (or require a strained parsing thereof), it just shows that both are analogies.
“No where is the Bible does it mention a Successor, or even the possibility of a successor.”
___________________________________________________________________________
Acts 1:15-26 - the first thing Peter does after Jesus ascends into heaven is implement apostolic succession. Matthias is ordained with full apostolic authority. Only the Catholic Church can demonstrate an unbroken apostolic lineage to the apostles in union with Peter through the sacrament of ordination and thereby claim to teach with Christ’s own authority.
Acts 1:20 - a successor of Judas is chosen. The authority of his office (his “bishopric”) is respected notwithstanding his egregious sin. The necessity to have apostolic succession in order for the Church to survive was understood by all. God never said, “I’ll give you leaders with authority for about 400 years, but after the Bible is compiled, you are all on your own.”
Acts 1:22 - literally, “one must be ordained” to be a witness with us of His resurrection. Apostolic ordination is required in order to teach with Christ’s authority.
Acts 6:6 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority has transferred beyond the original twelve apostles as the Church has grown.
Acts 9:17-19 - even Paul, who was directly chosen by Christ, only becomes a minister after the laying on of hands by a bishop. This is a powerful proof-text for the necessity of sacramental ordination in order to be a legitimate successor of the apostles.
Acts 13:3 - apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination). This authority must come from a Catholic bishop.
Acts 14:23 - the apostles and newly-ordained men appointed elders to have authority throughout the Church.
Acts 15:22-27 - preachers of the Word must be sent by the bishops in union with the Church. We must trace this authority to the apostles.
2 Cor. 1:21-22 - Paul writes that God has commissioned certain men and sealed them with the Holy Spirit as a guarantee.
Col 1:25 - Paul calls his position a divine “office.” An office has successors. It does not terminate at death. Or it’s not an office. See also Heb. 7:23 – an office continues with another successor after the previous office-holder’s death.
1 Tim. 3:1 - Paul uses the word “episcopoi” (bishop) which requires an office. Everyone understood that Paul’s use of episcopoi and office meant it would carry on after his death by those who would succeed him.
1 Tim. 4:14 - again, apostolic authority is transferred through the laying on of hands (ordination).
1 Tim. 5:22 - Paul urges Timothy to be careful in laying on the hands (ordaining others). The gift of authority is a reality and cannot be used indiscriminately.
2 Tim. 1:6 - Paul again reminds Timothy the unique gift of God that he received through the laying on of hands.
2 Tim. 4:1-6 - at end of Paul’s life, Paul charges Timothy with the office of his ministry . We must trace true apostolic lineage back to a Catholic bishop.
2 Tim. 2:2 - this verse shows God’s intention is to transfer authority to successors (here, Paul to Timothy to 3rd to 4th generation). It goes beyond the death of the apostles.
Titus 1:5; Luke 10:1 - the elders of the Church are appointed and hold authority. God has His children participate in Christ’s work.
1 John 4:6 - whoever knows God listens to us (the bishops and the successors to the apostles). This is the way we discern truth and error (not just by reading the Bible and interpreting it for ourselves).
Exodus 18:25-26 - Moses appoints various heads over the people of God. We see a hierarchy, a transfer of authority and succession.
Exodus 40:15 - the physical anointing shows that God intended a perpetual priesthood with an identifiable unbroken succession.
Numbers 3:3 - the sons of Aaron were formally “anointed” priests in “ordination” to minister in the priests’ “office.”
Numbers 16:40 - shows God’s intention of unbroken succession within His kingdom on earth. Unless a priest was ordained by Aaron and his descendants, he had no authority.
Numbers 27:18-20 - shows God’s intention that, through the “laying on of hands,” one is commissioned and has authority.
Deut. 34:9 - Moses laid hands upon Joshua, and because of this, Joshua was obeyed as successor, full of the spirit of wisdom.
Sirach 45:15 - Moses ordains Aaron and anoints him with oil. There is a transfer of authority through formal ordination.
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html
Ephesians 2:20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord.
No special mention of Peter?
If Peter is the rock, why is he not also Satan? Matthew 16:23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”
The story of Peter’s confession is told in three of the Gospels (see Mark 8, Luke 9). Only one telling mentioned the rock and keys. So is the important thing to remember the confession or the keys?
In Matthew 7 (before Peter’s confession), Jesus has already explained the concept of the rock to the Apostles. They would have remembered the lesson of building on the rock and they would not have assumed the rock was Peter.
We can see this is true because in Mark 9:34 (after Peter’s confession) “they had argued with one another about who was the greatest.” This was after the keys and rock comment. The Apostles understood the concept of the rock and it was not Peter.
Using rationalizations for earthly power is a perversion of the Gospel. Reading the creeds, not one mentions Peter or the office of Pope. No where is the Bible does it mention a Successor, or even the possibility of a successor. Human rationalizations for why there has to be a successor mean nothing.
INDEED.