Replies

Easy for you to say.
Easy for me to say.

But....If you've been taught it was Peter - not easy.

Likewise, if you have been TAUGHT that Peter WAS NOT the Rock and this belief is critical to your rejection of Catholicism, then it is very difficult to accept that the Lord meant EXACTLY what He said.

ACTUALLY, NO.

It’s not the equal reverse.

1. FOR SOME interesting reason, MORE RC’s seem to have a MUCH MORE TERMINALLY DIFFICULT time of even fairly considering the facts than do most Prottys.

2. And, if they manage to survive that hurdle with their wits intact, and choose to leave the RC edifice, THEN the wailing and dust throwing on the part of relatives is really rather exaggeratedly dramatic. One would think they’d become a Jihadi.

3. No, there’s some very entrenched spiritual forces cultivating some very entrenched idolatry. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for the OBSERVED spiritual and intellectual utter blindness to basic historical facts.

4. Prottys can have similar things—and, I think it’s worse amongst the MORE traditional Protty clubs . . . but it’s still TYPICALLY NOT AS FIERCE and as unalterably set in concrete.

Likewise, if you have been TAUGHT that Peter WAS NOT the Rock and this belief is critical to your rejection of Catholicism, then it is very difficult to accept that the Lord meant EXACTLY what He said.

The Lord DID mean exactly what He said...That's why we know Jesus is the Rock and Peter is the stone...

It's not a parable like John 6...

You are Peter; upon this rock...
If that's the way Jesus spoke to refer to Peter, He would have flunked 6th grade Greek...

Likewise, if you have been TAUGHT that Peter WAS NOT the Rock and this belief is critical to your rejection of Catholicism, then it is very difficult to accept that the Lord meant EXACTLY what He said.

AUGUSTINE:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1).

And I tell you...‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ...Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Vol. 6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

Confidence in the Biblical evidence that Peter was NOT the foundational ROCK of Christ's church

is not at all necessary for rejection of great chunks of the RC edifice.

As I've articulated a number of times hereon . . . EVEN IF [which I don't for a microsecond believe] . . . yet EVEN

IF

The RC edifice HAD [which it hadn't] started out anointed with the fiesty pebble as head . . .

The anointing left the building early on.

imho, one of the main reasons the RC edifice has to pontificate at such intensity and great length about the PRESENCE in the wafer and wine

Is because HOLY SPIRIT'S PRESENCE has been relegated to a few micro pockets here and there in the vast edifice . . . .

while the political ecclesiastical magicsterical power mongers go merily on their way creating dogma out of black holes and maniacal magicsterical fantasies.

Propagandizing the faithful into believing the wafer and wine are as magical as Mary's hankies works pretty well to maintain a death grip on the RELIGIOUS serfs.

And, I can readily believe that God's gracious enough, that on occasion, He, Himself blesses the relatively few uniquely authentic folks in the vast edifice with a spiritual shot in the arm for their devotion TO HIM in such meditative rituals.

The RC edifice rubberized histories, rubberized 'Scriptures' and rubberized dictionaries will never be very convincing, to me.

The BEHAVIOR of the RC edifice from it's founding around AD400 to the present is further reason to maintain rather reflexive revulsion for great chunks of the edifice based on simple objective observation.