Replies

“Why can’t your church decide which is RIGHT?”

The premise of your question makes no sense. The interpretations handed down are valid for what they are. They all present different facets of the truth about Christ and the establishment of the Church. What is “RIGHT” is to denounce only what is wrong - and that error would be to exclude the interpretation that Peter is the Rock. And that is exactly what the Church does.

“I posted quotes from YOUR leaders that AGREE with the Protestant view.”

No. First of all, what Protestant view? Here is a Protestant view:

D. A. Carson, warites, in The Expositor’s Bible Commentary:

“[T]he underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (”you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses.
...
Craig S. Keener, another Protestant scholar, on page 90 of The IVP Bible Background Commentary of the New Testament, states: “In Greek (here), they (referring to petros and petra) are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period…” D. A. Carson points out the big/small distinction did exist in Greek, but is found only in ancient Greek (used from the eighth to the fourth century B.C.), and even there it is mostly confined to poetry. The New Testament was written in Koine Greek (used from the fourth century B.C. to the fifth century A.D.). Carson agrees with Keener and with Catholics that there is no distinction in definition between petros and petra.”

Okay, so there’s a Protestant view - that Peter is the Rock.

Or:

How about Oscar Cullman - another Protestant - in Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.”

So, we see that the “Protestant view” can be more than one thing on this issue. Clearly sola scriptura has failed again.

Now, if you mean that the Protestant view is Peter’s confession and not Peter himself. you still have a problem. Let’s look at what you wrote: “I posted quotes from YOUR leaders that AGREE with the Protestant view.”

What you wrote there makes no sense whatsoever. It is an anachronism. There have always been Catholics who have written interpretations of Matthew 16 which emphasized Peter’s confession more than Peter’s person as the Rock. The reverse has also been true. The two interpretations are not mutually exclusive when one keeps in mind the four senses of scripture. If you read some early Christian books you’ll see BOTH interpretations side-by-side. What the Churhc teaches is that you can’t exclude the idea that Peter is the Rock - which is what some Protestants do and what I think you are trying to present as the “Protestant view” when I just showed you it is not as universal among Protestants are you might assume.

“I will wait for you (or any othetr Catholic reading this) to post QUOTES from Catholic Leaders that show the OTHER ‘interpretation(s)’.”

I posted where to find them. I also listed a paragraph from the CCC which shows the influence of both. So, keep on waiting if you don’t have the knowledge of how to use google.