Mass with 2 Protestants and 1 Crucifix

Ping me if you get an answer.

So you are telling me that pope francis and the cardinals that elected him are infallible.

In fairness that is not a valid argument, since the the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility is restricted to a formal subject (faith and morals) scope (to all the church) teaching of something that is to be held as authentic part of Catholic tradition, and while this possibly extends to in canonizations, it is not for papal elections, except as interpreted by some. However, it is held that the Spirit guides the RCC in elections of a pope, and that even in non-infallible teaching, she is preserved from salvific error. If she does say so herself.

It’s lunacy to think Christ’s promise of a Church for us sinners would have survived even the first 5 centuries of persecution and the heresies that tried to tear away, and tear down, at the Church from the beginning. For the Church to survive this without appointed leadership and authority of Peter and his continual successors is just childish thinking. There had to be authority. There are thousands of Protestant sects all over the place all them doing their own thing with very little consensus. It’s chaos. It’s chaos that started with Calvin, Luther Zwingli and all the other revolutionaries that wanted to split Christ’s only Church. The Papal succession from Peter onward to this day should be enough to understand what Christ meant as he spoke to Peter- and ONLY Peter...

From Catholic Answers:
Few texts have been the occasion for the spilling of more ink than Matthew 16:17-19:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you,Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

For Catholics, this text is clear. All twelve apostles were present, yet Jesus promised to give to Peter alone the keys of the kingdom, symbolizing the authority of Christ—the authority of heaven—over the kingdom of heaven on Earth, which is the Church. Yet millions of Protestants believe that there is a distinction in meaning in the Greek text between the two “rocks” that would eliminate Peter from consideration for being the rock.

“Thou art petros and upon this petra I will build my church . . .” The first rock, petros, is claimed to refer to a small, insignificant rock: Peter. The second, petra, is claimed to mean a massive boulder: that would be either Jesus or Peter’s confession of faith. The argument concludes Jesus did not build his church upon St. Peter but either upon himself or Peter’s faith.

Below are seven reasons, among many others we could examine, why Peter is undeniably the rock:

1) Matthew, we have pretty solid evidence, was originally written in Aramaic. Both Sts. Papias and Irenaeus tell us as much in the second century. But even more importantly—and more certainly—Jesus would not have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Greek. Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, but most of the common Jewish folk to whom Jesus spoke would not have been fluent in it. Aramaic was their spoken language.

Moreover, we have biblical evidence—John 1:42—that also points to Jesus using Aramaic in the naming of Peter: “[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’” (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic Kepha, which means simply “rock.” There would have been no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter.

Even well-respected Protestant scholars will agree on this point. Baptist scholar 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.

2) In Koine Greek (the dialect of Greek used by the authors of the New Testament), petros and petra are masculine and feminine forms of words with the same root and the same definition—rock. There is no “small rock” to be found in the Greek text, either.

So why did St. Matthew use these two words in the same verse? Petra was a common word used for “rock” in Greek. It’s used fifteen times to mean “rock,” “rocks,” or “rocky” in the New Testament. Petros is an ancient Greek term that was not commonly used in Koine Greek at all. In fact, it was never used in the New Testament, except for Peter’s name after Jesus changed it from Simon to Peter.

It follows that when St. Matthew was translating, he would have used petra for “rock.” However, in so doing, he would have encountered a problem. Petra is a feminine noun. It would have been improper to call Peter Petra. This would be equivalent to calling a male “Valerie” or “Priscilla” in English. Hence, petros was used instead of petra for Peter’s name.

3) There are several words the inspired author could have used for rock or stone in Greek. Petra and lithos were the most common. They could be used interchangeably. A connotation of “large” or “small” with either of them would depend on context. The words simply meant rock or stone.

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.

One of the most respected and referenced Greek dictionaries among Evangelicals is Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. In a most candid statement about Matthew 16:18, Dr. Oscar Pullman, a contributing editor to this work, writes:

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.

4) If St. Matthew wanted to distinguish “rocks” in the text, he would have most likely used lithos. As stated above, lithos could refer to a large rock, but it was more commonly used to denote a small stone. However, there is a third word St. Matthew could have used that always means small stone: psephos. It is used twice in Rev. 2:17 as “small stone” when Jesus says, “To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white stone, with a new name written on the stone which no one knows except him who receives it.” Here we have one Greek word that unlike lithos and petra always has a connotation of “small stone,” or “pebble.”

5) A simpler line of reasoning gets away from original languages and examines the immediate context of the passage. Notice, our Lord says to St. Peter in Matthew 16:17-19:

And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus uses the second person personal seven times in just three verses. The context is clearly one of Jesus communicating a unique authority to Peter.

Further, Jesus is portrayed as the builder of the Church, not the building. He said, “I will build my church.” Jesus is “the wise man who built his house upon the rock” (Matt. 7:24) in Matthew’s Gospel. Once again, it just does not fit the context to have Jesus building the Church upon himself. He’s building it upon Peter.

6) A lot of folks miss the significance of Simon’s name change to Peter. When God revealed to certain of his people a new and radical calling in Scripture, he sometimes changed their names. In particular, we find this in the calling of the Patriarchs. Abram (“exalted father” in Hebrew) was changed to Abraham (“father of the multitudes”). Jacob (“supplanter”) to Israel (“One who prevails with God”). In fact, there is a very interesting parallel here between Abraham and St. Peter. In Isaiah 51:1-2, we read:

Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you who seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn. . . . Look to Abraham your father.

Jesus here makes St. Peter a true “father” over the household of faith, just as God made Abraham our true “father” in the Faith (cf. Romans 4:1-18; James 2:21). Hence, it is fitting that Peter’s successors are called “pope” or “papa,” as was Abraham (cf. Luke 16:24).

7) When we understand that Christ is the true “son of David” who came to restore the prophetic Kingdom of David, we understand that Christ in Matthew 16, like the King of Israel, was establishing a “prime minister” among his ministers—the apostles—in the Kingdom. Isaiah 22:15-22 gives us insight into the ministry of the “prime minister” in ancient Israel:

Thus says the Lord God of hosts, “Come, go to this steward, to Shebna, who is over the household, and say to him . . . Behold the Lord will hurl you away violently. . . . I will thrust you from your office, and you will be cast down from your station. In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

In Revelation 1:18, Jesus declares, “I have the keys of Death and Hades.” He then quotes this very text from Isaiah in Revelation 3:7:

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: “The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.”

No Christian would deny Jesus is the King who possesses the keys. Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

So we get what St. Augustine thought.....let’s see what his predescessors, closer to the Apostles knew as truth....

And all this......200 years before St. Augustine...... so sorry, you post has Much less authenticity then you are trying to persuade with.....

The further you get from the source...in your case 200 ancient years +.. * Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.): "Simon Kephas 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 Rock, 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 (220 A.D.):"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).
* Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying ...."I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

* The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.) "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]) * St. Gregory Nazianzus write …. "See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church." (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). ... and "Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … "[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys." (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

* St. Gregory of Nyssa: "Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter." (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. "Peter ...that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church." (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

* St. Basil the Great:…. "The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. "The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock ..." (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

* St. John Chrysostom: "...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. "Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. "Peter, ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)

Just giving you information you won’t be given elsewhere...but the Church does not exist into the future without authority, authority that Christ gave to Peter ... there was no other reason for Matthews Gospel here....

You can re-write the Gospels as you wish, since Jesus never said anything about writing a New Testament and making sure everyone gets a copy.... So he could not make it a commandment NOT to rewrite the NT Gospels....it isn’t prudent though and would call into question much more inerrancy to the Bible translations..... unless you are ok with that, which is ok too.

So when Jesus calls Peter, Jesus HAS THE NEED to rename Simon Bar Jona when CHRIST FIRST MEETS HIM..... why would you change someone’s name that you have just met? What would the purpose be? He didn’t do that for any other apostle......WHY PETER ? Why the name Petra/ petras, Kephas, whatever...why change his name?

In John 1:42, Jesus changes the Apostle Simon’s name to Cephas, or Peter, a name which means “Rock”. Now we know from scripture that Jesus is the Rock, or Cornerstone (1 Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, it can be assumed from this name change that Jesus is handing on to Peter what He Himself is, Rock. John 1:41-42: He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). (**NOTE - The above scripture totally negates the protestant argument that Jesus called Peter "petros" or "petras", which is Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, which means that he called Peter "Cephas", which means "Rock" in Aramaic.)

There had to be authority.

Yeah; the first three chapters of Revelation show how well your supposed AUTHORITY worked!

Seven churches wandering off in all directions!

Who does he give the keys to? Peter!

Not quite...

Matthew 16:13-20
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They 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?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

20. Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Chapters and verses were invented later; as we all know...

When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Then he ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.

Reading the text we can see that Jesus is talking to the GROUP of disciples; and He is answered by the impulsive one - SIMON Peter.

After dealing with SIMON Peter, He states - to the group - "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Catholic teaching limits this to SIMON Peter.

...let’s see what his predescessors, closer to the Apostles knew as truth....

So; it appears that 200 years of Rome's authority and teaching and Augustine ain't getting it right?

HMMMmmm...

These guys are part of the 'infallible' church; eh?

As regards the oft-quoted Mt. 16:18, note the following Early Church Fathers promise in the profession of faith of Vatican 1:

• 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.

Early Church Fathers

How EARLY were they??

• Basil of Seleucia,

His date of birth is uncertain; he died probably between 458 and 460, although Oxford cites his death at after 468; was distinguished during the period when the Eastern Church was convulsed by the Eutychian controversy, and was necessarily obliged to take sides in all the attendant disputes. Those of his writings which have come down to us, though perhaps too rhetorical and involved, suggest that he was a man of great literary ability. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basil_of_Seleucia

• Bede, /ˈbiːd/ (Old English: Bǣda, Bēda; 672/3 – 26 May 735), also known as Saint Bede, Venerable Bede, and Bede the Venerable (Latin: Bēda Venerābilis), was an English Benedictine monk at the monastery of St. Peter and its companion monastery of St. Paul in the Kingdom of Northumbria of the Angles (contemporarily Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey in Tyne and Wear, England).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bede

• Cassiodorus, Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus Senator (c. 485 – c. 585),^[1] commonly known as Cassiodorus (/ˌkæsioʊˈdɔːrəs/), was a Roman statesman, renowned scholar of antiquity, and writer serving in the administration of Theodoric the Great, king of the Ostrogoths. Senator was part of his surname, not his rank. He also founded a monastery, Vivarium, where he spent the last years of his life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassiodorus

• Chrysostom (John) John Chrysostom (/ˈkrɪsəstəm, krɪˈsɒstəm/; Greek: Ἰωάννης ὁ Χρυσόστομος; c. 347 – 14 September 407),^[6] Archbishop of Constantinople, was an important Early Church Father. He is known for his preaching and public speaking, his denunciation of abuse of authority^[7] by both ecclesiastical and political leaders, the Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, and his ascetic sensibilities. The epithet Χρυσόστομος (Chrysostomos, anglicized as Chrysostom) means "golden-mouthed" in Greek and denotes his celebrated eloquence.^[2]^[8] Chrysostom was among the most prolific authors in the early Christian Church, exceeded only by Augustine of Hippo in the quantity of his surviving writings.^{[9] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Chrysostom}

• Origen, of Alexandria^[a] (c. 184 – c. 253),^[5] also known as Origen Adamantius,^[b] was an early Christian scholar, ascetic,^[8] and theologian who was born and spent the first half of his career in Alexandria. He was a prolific writer who wrote roughly 2,000 treatises in multiple branches of theology, including textual criticism, biblical exegesis and biblical hermeneutics, homiletics, and spirituality. He was one of the most influential figures in early Christian theology, apologetics, and asceticism.^[8]^[9] He has been described as "the greatest genius the early church ever produced".^{[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen}

• Hilary Poitiers (Latin: Hilarius; c. 310 – c. 367)^[2] was Bishop of Poitiers and a Doctor of the Church. He was sometimes referred to as the "Hammer of the Arians" (Malleus Arianorum) and the "Athanasius of the West",^[3] His name comes from the Latin word for happy or cheerful. In addition to his important work as Bishop, Hilary was married and the father of Abra of Poitiers, a nun and saint who became known for her charity.^[4] His optional memorial in the General Roman Calendar is 13 January. In the past, when this date was occupied by the Octave Day of the Epiphany, his feast day was moved to 14 January.^{[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_of_Poitiers}

In John 1:42, Jesus changes the Apostle Simon’s name to Cephas, or Peter, a name which means “Rock”.

Jesus 'changed' nothing.

John 1:42 Douay-Rheims Bible

And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

Jesus merely told him what he WOULD be called in the future.

The verse does NOT say, "Simon; I change your name to Peter."

So when Jesus calls Peter, Jesus HAS THE NEED to rename Simon Bar Jona when CHRIST FIRST MEETS HIM.

Need?

Where do you GET this stuff?

If you want to use a verse where Jesus DOES change Simon's name; use one of these:

Luke 4:8 or Matthew 16:23

“Exceptions are bad things to make rules over.”

Amen

“Ping me if you get an answer.”

Please don’t hold your breath if I’m a betting man I’ll bet hell will freeze over first.

“I get the feeling that even a Holy Hand Grenade would not please YOU!”

Rapture...

“In fairness that is not a valid argument,”

Thanks Dan I’ll work on the validity of my arguments, lol.

I learned a long time ago not to.

Well, if Jesus never commanded anyone to write down the gospels, why did the Catholic so-.called church take it on themselves to do so?

You do realize, don’t you, that that is the weakest, lamest argument going?

It’s absolutely pathetic that Catholics use it.

Therefore, it can be assumed from this name change that Jesus is handing on to Peter what He Himself is, Rock.

What wild rationalization. ANYTHING to justify Catholicism’s claims for the papcy.

Sorry if you took that the wrong way, while on my part I should said "may not be considered a valid argument.". I am glad you are contending for Truth vs. Catholic and cultic corruption, and was just trying to help in that, since the opposition will use any error to negate the whole of our argument and the charge of us not understanding infallibility is a common one lodged by RCs. Relative to this, the assertion that it takes an infallible church to compile a list of books (which presumes the very thing it fails to establish, that Rome's larger OT is infallible, since Rome infallibly declared she possesses ensured conditional infallibility, and as pointed out, means that the authoritative body of Scripture that the Lord and NT invoked as authoritative Scripture - all the Scripture in Lk. 24:27 - was not a sure infallible list) does not mean to the majority of RCs that papal elections are considered an infallible exercise of the magisterium, unlike defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.

However, magisterial infallibility has two levels (along with one or two non-infallible levels), and since Catholic teaching is subject to interpretation, there are those who hold that the validity of papal elections are infallible. In his opinion as a former member of the Congregation For the Doctrine of the Faith, Ratzinger states in his commentary on Pope John Paul’s II 1998 Motu Proprio Ad Tuendam Fidem that,

With regard to those truths connected to revelation by historical necessity and which are to be held definitively, but are not able to be declared as divinely revealed, the following examples can be given: the legitimacy of the election of the Supreme Pontiff or of the celebration of an ecumenical council, the canonizations of saints (dogmatic facts), the declaration of Pope Leo XIII in the apostolic letter Apostolicae Curae on the invalidity of Anglican ordinations… (https://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/media/articles/doctrinal-commentary-on-ad-tuendam-fidem-joseph-cardinal-ratzinger)

Of course, the RCs contending here on FR are hardly likely to hold that the election of Francis was an infallible exercise of the RC magisterium.

You can re-write the Gospels as you wish, since Jesus never said anything about writing a New Testament and making sure everyone gets a copy..

So according this reasoning, only what Jesus said constitutes doctrine (red-letter hermeneutic), yet what He said in the gospels can be changed, and thus one could add not only something like "the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book, (Exodus 17:14) as well as the distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

However, Christ intended His words to be written is consistent with His own reliance upon that which was written, Actually Scripture, for a supremely authoritative body of wholly inspired writings was discerned and established as being so came before there ever was a church of Rome, and thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.

For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. Now go, write it before them in a table, and note it in a book, that it may be for the time to come for ever and ever: (Isaiah 30:8) Cf. Exodus 17:14; 34:1,27; Deuteronomy 10:4; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; Joshua 1:8; 2 Chronicles 34:15,18-19, 30-31; Psalm 19:7-11; 102:18; 119; Isaiah 30:8; Jeremiah 30:2; Matthew 4:5-7; 22:29; Luke 24:44,45; John 5:46,47; John 20:31; Acts 17:2,11; 18:28; Revelation 1:1; 20:12, 15;

Thus as abundantly evidenced , as written and established, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured Word of God.

Thus, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" [not oral tradition].(Luke 24:27,43-45; cf. Acts 17:2; 18:28, etc.) "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11)

As for oral tradition, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.

All of which invalidates the argument that "you could not know what Scripture consists of and means without the Catholic church, and since we have you the Bible then it means you recognize her authority and need to submit to all else she formally defines.

In John 1:42, Jesus changes the Apostle Simon’s name to Cephas, or Peter, a name which means “Rock”. Now we know from scripture that Jesus is the Rock, or Cornerstone (1 Corinthians 10:4). Therefore, it can be assumed from this name change that Jesus is handing on to Peter what He Himself is, Rock. John 1:41-42: He first found his brother Simon, and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter). (**NOTE - The above scripture totally negates the protestant argument that Jesus called Peter "petros" or "petras", which is Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, which means that he called Peter "Cephas", which means "Rock" in Aramaic.)

Why are you still parroting this propaganda based upon isolationist eisegesis? I guess you missed post 49:

For as far as being the rock upon which the church is built, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the so-called “church fathers” concur with.)

In addition, that that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome and the first of a line of supreme infallible heads reigning over all the churches, and having the final defining judgment in questions affecting the whole Church, even without the consent of the bishops is contrary to what Scripture reveals of Peter, and which modern research even by Catholics provides testimony against. And is one of the distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).

Also see here on: there is a very good possibility that the possible “underlying Aramaic” for the “petros/petra” wordplay (possibly “kepha/kepha” in the unknown Aramaic) may well have been “kepha/tnra” – which then separates the Greek “petros/petra” by more than just gender issues; it changes the whole meaning of the wordplay.