Monsignor Pope Ping for OSV colum!
My thought is that this is fundamentally dishonest. Peter cannot be the rock because Jesus very deliberately shifts from masculine Peter-rock—Petros—to feminine rock—petra—to describe the foundation. I.e.: the foundation is the Good Confession. [Even Augustine—a man of no mean scholarship—confirmed this.]
If the author does not know or will not admit that this is the real issue then he’s either too uneducated to opine or too dishonest to address the truth. ‘B,’ is far more likely.
The word game essentially becomes meaningless when you also examine the word “Peter” as well as the word “rock”. He didn’t say Borgia, or Francis. Or say he was building a fabulously wealthy fuedal monarchy with temporal leaders. Its also helpful to remember that when the words were written in 70 AD, that everyone hearing them had already died. So it’s dicey to parse the precise words and punctuation as you would a tape recording. Everyone treasures Peter, but this has taken on a life of its own. It became a football when the Roman Empire wanted all of Christiandom to place the church in Rome superior to the older ones in place, and where the events actually happened.
“Is there an answer for this? — Allen Desome, Washington, D.C. ”
A good example of someone who wants someone to justify what he was taught, instead of seeking truth from Scripture.
He has outsourced his mind instead of obeying the command of God to “study to show yourself approved, a workman who rightly handles the Word of Truth.”
I think the reference in Matthew 16 is pretty explicit (the name change tells the story), and I have never heard a protestant explanation (other than the obvious) that didn’t sound forced and even a bit embarrassing.
For the other team, I think that the “complete” form of apostolic succession wherein the Bishop of Rome is automatically “Peter” is also contrived and embarrassing. “Incomplete” apostolic succession, where bishops are chosen and then invested by laying on of hands by the brothers seems quite solid.
When Jesus said, “this rock”, He was referring to Peter’s confession of who Jesus was, not Peter himself.
Jesus is the reason for modern religions and a lot of different religions bank on their own versions of certain things that make little difference to those who worship Christ rather than their own brand(s) of religion. The Bible tried to make it uncomplicated and then men decided to complicate the heck out of it by deciding certain facts/beliefs had more validity than others' interpretations and too often, Jesus is relegated to a secondary position to the arguments.
Instead of honoring those who were honored by God, we worship and pray to dead mortals and all the while ignore that we have been given an open line, direct to God - kind of like the bit in the Bible about those worshiping the idols they made out of wood and used other parts of the same wood to make chairs and tables...how much more complicated can we make it when the message of the New Covenant is to worship God and Praise Jesus by confessing to Him that we realize our personal inadequacies and thanking Him for His incredible gift of Grace?
Those that do not recognize the teaching authority of the Church often miss the fact that without that authority, even the core beliefs of their own personal interpretation of someone else’s version of Christianity is seriously cast into doubt.
7
It was Peter’s confession, not Peter.
The term applied to Peter was petros.
The petra, the rock on which the Church would be built, is not just the feminine form of the word but has a different meaning,
As for the keys, I would put it to you that this would be a prophesy of something(s) Peter would participate in which I would say can be satisfied on account of these two occasions: opened when Peter and the disciples with him (as witnesses) were sent to Cornileus; closed when Peter and James orchestrated and decided the Jerusalem conference so that circumcision would not be demanded of Gentile believers (Paul and Barnabas’ presentation was not one of theology, but describing the works, it was Peter who gave the theology and decision and after Paul and Barnabas had spoken it was James who reiterated the decision Peter had previously given).
In both cases though, what was being built upon was not Peter but was something in accord with his confession: the Gospel and its application. In the first he was proclaiming the Gospel to Cornelius and his family and friends and the Holy Spirit fell on them without them being baptized first. In the second the decision he provided made it clear that the Gospel, as the context in which the works that Paul and Barnabas subsequently described, was not subject to the Law.
You may also note that in neither instance did Peter act alone.
In Caesarea he went with witnesses and he did not go of his own accord but was sent for by name. What he did himself is twofold and relates to him accepting alternately what the Holy Spirit was telling him, so that he agreed to go with the men sent to fetch him, and that he (and the witnesses he’d brought with him) agreed with the clear witness of the presence of the Holy Spirit indwelling the Gentiles he’d been sent to when they began to speak in tongues and to praise God.
You may note, though, what Peter said about the other who went with him, why they were there. He said: “We are witnesses of everything he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem.” and not “I’m a witness”. So the Gospel he gave was not one predicated on his own witness, but their collective witness since they were there with him in one accord. Which is just to say they were NOT there to witness something happen BUT to be witnesses for the Gospel. Peter came prepared to give an account of the Gospel and that meant bringing folks who could back him up on their own.
As I said, he didn’t act alone.
In the Jerusalem conference I would put it to you that the very structure of that event shows that Peter had learned the lesson of when Jesus said when he said that if people couldn’t believe on account of the teaching then they could on account of the works, and not just that Peter had learned this lesson but — since he had prepared statement ready when he stood up at the end agreeing with Peter — James too. I believe it reasonable therefore to assert that Peter and James were together in orchestrating the outcome of Jerusalem conference.
Look at the order of events:
Paul and Barnabas gave an account of all that God had done with them to 1) apostles, 2) elders and 3) the Church and THEN others came forward who were of the party that had been teaching circumcision of Gentiles whose teaching had prompted Paul and Barnabas to come to Jerusalem in the first place. This isn’t some different group but they would have been, at a minimum, those who had sent folks “to Antioch from Judea” in the first place. Or they may well have been those same folks returned to Judea from Antioch, coming with Paul and Barnabas. All this just underscores that the Church had on that occasion come together for this very purpose and to decide this very matter.
After this it says “The apostles and the elders gathered to consider this problem.” If this is a subsequent meeting or if they just took their places to hold a formal conference doesn’t much matter, so much as now they are formally gathered to discuss this topic.
Now everyone got a chance to say their peace, the “long debate”, to present their views. When they had all done so Peter stood up and said: “Brothers, you know that in the early days God chose me from among you to preach the Good News to the nations. They heard the Good News from me, and they believed. God, who knows the thoughts of everyone, accepted them. He showed this to us by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us. To God, those people are not different from us. When they believed, he made their hearts pure. So now why are you testing God by putting a heavy load around the necks of the non-Jewish believers? It is a load that neither we nor our ancestors were able to carry. But we believe that we and they too will be saved by the grace of the Lord Jesus.”
Now, I’m assuming you all know Paul, that he is not one to shy away from theology, right?
But Paul and Barnabas do not give theology at this point. They talk miracles and signs. They don’t have to say what sort of Gospel they’d been teaching because that Gospel, given to Gentiles, was the very reason why they were there and everyone knew it.
Peter had already given the decision and Paul and Barnabas were silencing opposition to that decision (the men teaching circumcision of Gentile believers might not yet accept the teaching but they had to accept the miraculous works that bore witness of the teaching).
Which do you imagine to be more reasonable: that Paul and Barnabas simply forego trying to give more reasonings or that Peter had told them the sort of things they should say at this point?
In the same manner we should judge James’ giving an amen to the decision that Peter had already proclaimed. That’s why I say they obviously were in cohoots.
Again, Peter is not acting alone.
And again, what is being built upon, the Gospel, is in line with Peter’s confession and not Peter himself.
Look up the words in the original Aramaic or Greek, then decide whether Jesus called Peter ( Cephas) a rock or “the ROCK). I read it as “Peter you are a stone and upon this rock, I will build my church”, “this rock” being the truth that Peter had just spoken (Mt 16:16- You are the Messiah, the Son of God).
One most important policy to understanding scripture is to let scripture interpret scripture.
Then, we can look to historical truths as well, Peter while a key Apostle, was never looked upon “the supreme Leader” by early the church as in the way many folks do since about 300 AD ( Constantine is a key to this question and he has a motive).
The irony again is not lost on the reader.
Couple this one with the msgr talking about context, context, context.
The RCs may get there one day.
Foodfight
Mr. Pope makes far too many presumptions about what Protestants believe or fail to understand. On the other hand, he makes many assumptions about things that are based on Catholic presumptions and not Biblical evidence.
Are you being intentionally provocative towards non-Caths again, Sal? How many times as this topic been rehashed and what could you possibly NOT know about our "thoughts" on it???
If you guys want a church built on a very fallible and often wrong human being go for it. The error in translation calling Peter the Rock has been pointed out ad nauseum. I worship in the true Church built on the only steadfast Rock, the Rock of Ages Jesus Christ
|
Is Peter the 'rock'?
As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'
BEFORE the following verses came along.....
NIV 1 Corinthians 10:4
and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ. NIV Luke 6:48
He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. NIV Romans 9:33
As it is written: "See, I lay in Zion a stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." NIV 1 Peter 2:4-8
4. As you come to him, the living Stone--rejected by men but chosen by God and precious to him-- 5. you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6. For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." 7. Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, " 8. and, "A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message--which is also what they were destined for. But, since there WAS no NT at the time Christ spoke to Peter, just what DID Peter and the rest of the Disciples know about ROCKS??? NIV Genesis 49:24-25 24. But his bow remained steady, his strong arms stayed limber, because of the hand of the Mighty One of Jacob, because of the Shepherd, the Rock of Israel, 25. because of your father's God, who helps you, because of the Almighty, who blesses you with blessings of the heavens above, blessings of the deep that lies below, blessings of the breast and womb. NIV Numbers 20:8
"Take the staff, and you and your brother Aaron gather the assembly together. Speak to that rock before their eyes and it will pour out its water. You will bring water out of the rock for the community so they and their livestock can drink." NIV 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. NIV Deuteronomy 32:15
Jeshurun grew fat and kicked; filled with food, he became heavy and sleek. He abandoned the God who made him and rejected the Rock his Savior. NIV Deuteronomy 32:18
You deserted the Rock, who fathered you; you forgot the God who gave you birth. NIV Deuteronomy 32:30-31
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? 31. For their rock is not like our Rock, as even our enemies concede. NIV 1 Samuel 2:2
"There is no one holy like the LORD; there is no one besides you; there is no Rock like our God. NIV 2 Samuel 22:2-3
2. He said: "The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; 3. my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior-- from violent men you save me. NIV 2 Samuel 22:32
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV 2 Samuel 22:47
"The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my Savior! NIV 2 Samuel 23:3-4
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, 4. he is like the light of morning at sunrise on a cloudless morning, like the brightness after rain that brings the grass from the earth.' NIV Psalms 18:2
The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer; my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge. He is my shield and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold. NIV Psalms 18:31
For who is God besides the LORD? And who is the Rock except our God? NIV Psalms 18:46
The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God my Savior! NIV Psalms 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. NIV Psalms 28:1
To you I call, O LORD my Rock; do not turn a deaf ear to me. For if you remain silent, I will be like those who have gone down to the pit.
NIV Psalms 31:2-3
2. Turn your ear to me, come quickly to my rescue; be my rock of refuge, a strong fortress to save me. 3. Since you are my rock and my fortress, for the sake of your name lead and guide me. NIV Psalms 42:9
I say to God my Rock, "Why have you forgotten me? Why must I go about mourning, oppressed by the enemy?" NIV Psalms 62:2
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will never be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:6
He alone is my rock and my salvation; he is my fortress, I will not be shaken. NIV Psalms 62:7
My salvation and my honor depend on God ; he is my mighty rock, my refuge. NIV Psalms 71:3
Be my rock of refuge, to which I can always go; give the command to save me, for you are my rock and my fortress. NIV Psalms 78:35
They remembered that God was their Rock, that God Most High was their Redeemer. NIV Psalms 89:26
He will call out to me, `You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.' NIV Psalms 92:14-15
14. They will still bear fruit in old age, they will stay fresh and green, 15. proclaiming, "The LORD is upright; he is my Rock, and there is no wickedness in him." NIV Psalms 95:1
Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation. NIV Psalms 144:1
Praise be to the LORD my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. NIV Isaiah 17:10
You have forgotten God your Savior; you have not remembered the Rock, your fortress. NIV Isaiah 26:4
Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD, the LORD, is the Rock eternal. NIV Isaiah 30:29
And you will sing as on the night you celebrate a holy festival; your hearts will rejoice as when people go up with flutes to the mountain of the LORD, to the Rock of Israel. NIV Isaiah 44:8
Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one." NIV 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. |
And now you know the Biblical position!
• Basil of Seleucia, Oratio 25:
'You are Christ, Son of the living God.'...Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.' To whom be glory and power forever. — Oratio XXV.4, M.P.G., Vol. 85, Col. 296-297.
• Bede, Matthaei Evangelium Expositio, 3:
You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church...Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name. — 80Homily 23, M.P.L., Vol. 94, Col. 260. Cited by Karlfried Froehlich, Formen, Footnote #204, p. 156 [unable to verify by me].
• Cassiodorus, Psalm 45.5:
'It will not be moved' is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' For the Church cannot be moved because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord. — Expositions in the Psalms, Volume 1; Volume 51, Psalm 45.5, p. 455
• Chrysostom (John) [who affirmed Peter was a rock, but here not the rock in Mt. 16:18]:
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. — Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily LIIl; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html)
• Cyril of Alexandria:
When [Peter] wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,' Jesus said to divine Peter: 'You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Now by the word 'rock', Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple.”. — Cyril Commentary on Isaiah 4.2.
• Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII):
“For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.'
“For all bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters.” — Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Book XII), sect. 10,11 ( http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm)
• Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II):
Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth."-- (Hilary of Potier, On the Trinity (Book II), para 23; Philip Schaff, editor, The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers Series 2, Vol 9.
It’s a big mistake but not nearly as big as the whole Mary Mother of God, Immaculately conceived, assumed into heaven, queen of heaven, intercessor, co-redeemer, mediatrix thing.
Outside of the Roman Catholic Church, Christendom does not view Peter as the first of a succession of popes. At best, the bishop of Rome was “first among equals” at the ecumenical councils.
.
Obvious problems with the “Peter the Rock” foolishness begins with the fact that Yeshua did not state that he was founding a “church,” he said that he would “Build” (expand) his already existing Kehillah (congregation).
There is no “NT Church” mentioned anywhere in the scriptures.
.