Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[TreWalker]

What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church?

An answer from the Messianic Jewish side of the isle.

I found the Rock from Peter’s Confession
Ron Cantor — June 17, 2019

The passage begins with Yeshua taking his guys on a field trip to Caesarea Philippi, about 25 miles from Capernaum. This region was off limits to Jews. The rabbis forbade it. It was utterly demonic. People worshiped Pan, the half-man, half-goat, sex-crazed god. They committed unspeakable sexual acts there as part of their pagan worship.

On the mountain, there is a cave called, The Gates of Hell. It was through these gates, they thought, that one could enter hell itself. The cave was called the Cave of the gods.

Yeshua took His disciples there to make a few points.

1. Yeshua was not afraid of the enemy. He walked around knowing that demons were afraid of Him! Often believers are afraid of demons. I have news for you—if Yeshua lives in you, then demons are scared in your presence. The presence of God in you and the word of God in your mouth is torture to demons. Whenever demons saw Yeshua, they were terrified.
2. Gates are not offensive in nature, but defensive. They protect, not attack. But Yeshua, standing near the “Gates of Hell” was saying, “All the power in hell cannot stop what I am building. Not Greek gods nor Roman ones; not some pervert goat—no, I am coming to take over!”
3. And then, there is the issue of the rock. If you go to the region of this cave, it is one beautiful mountain made of rock. Yeshua was not like the rabbis. He clearly said that he had not come for the healthy but for the sick. He was often seen with drunkards and sinners, sharing His message. He was referring to the rock upon which this cave to hell existed. Again, he was coming to take over. He preached with authority, not like the rabbis. He would build a congregation, not in the Temple, but in the uttermost parts of the world. He was not playing it safe; he was seeking to rescue the utterly lost.

Not only would the gates of hell not overcome Jesus’ ecclesia, but he would build it on the ruins of the gates of hell.

 

[BBAS 64]

1,000 of protestant denominations who 'interpret' scripture uniquely. Differing views and opinions.

On these very forums you will find non denoms too who believe only they have the correct interpretation/view/opinion on what scripture is saying.

I prefer to stick with the Catholic church on what scripture is saying. And, after reading scripture, i must say i cannot see anything that turns me away from that view.

Good day, Lost4words

That list would include Roman Catholic as a denomination as well... check the primary source.

You can but in doing so you error:

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.



The differing interpretations of Scripture is nothing new... Historically that has always happened.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe.

In Him,,

Bill

 

[Lost4words]

Good day, Lost4words

That list would include Roman Catholic as a denomination as well... check the primary source.

You can but in doing so you error:

Raymond E. Brown: Roman Catholics who appeal explicitly to Spirit-guided church teaching are often unaware that their church has seldom if ever definitively pronounced on the literal meaning of a passage of Scripture, i.e., what the author meant when he wrote it. Most often the church has commented on the on-going meaning of Scripture by resisting the claims of those who would reject established practices or beliefs as unbiblical. Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament (New York: Doubleday, 1997), p. 31.



The differing interpretations of Scripture is nothing new... Historically that has always happened.

Basil of Caesarea (Ad 329-379): Liberated from the error of
pagan tradition through the benevolence and loving kindness
of the good God, with the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
by the operation of the Holy Spirit, I was reared from the very
beginning by Christian parents. From them I learned even in
babyhood the Holy Scriptures which led me to a knowledge of
the truth. When I grew to manhood, I traveled about frequently
and, in the natural course of things, I engaged in a great many
worldly affairs. Here I observed that the most harmonious
relations existed among those trained in the pursuit of each of
the arts and sciences; while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another and also in their understanding of
the Holy Scriptures. Most alarming of all is the fact that I found
the very leaders of the Church themselves at such variance
with one another in thought and opinion, showing so much
opposition to the commands of our Lord Jesus Christ, and so
mercilessly rendering asunder the Church of God and cruelly
confounding His flock that, in our day, with the rise of the
Anomoeans, there is fulfilled in them as never before the
prophecy, ‘Of your own selves shall men arise speaking
perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.’
Witnessing such disorders as these and perplexed as to what
the cause and source of such evil might be, I at first was in a
state, as it were, of thick darkness and, as if on a balance, I
veered now this way, now that—attracted now to one man,
now to another, under the influence of protracted association
with these persons, and then thrust in the other direction, as I
bethought myself of the validity of the Holy Scriptures. After a
long time spent in this state of indecision and while I was still
busily searching for the cause I have mentioned, there came to
my mind the Book of Judges which tells how each man did
what was right in his own eyes and gives the reason for this in
the words” ‘In those days there was no king in Israel.’ With
these words in my mind, then, I applied also to the present
circumstances that explanation which, incredible and
frightening as it may be, is quite truly pertinent when it is
understood; for never before has there arisen such discord
and quarreling as now among the the members of the Church
in consequence of their turning away from the one, great, and
true God, only King of the universe.

In Him,,

Bill

The thousands of different denominations came hundreds of years after Catholicism. Each clamouring with their own unique take on scripture!

 

[BBAS 64]

Not by Scripture Alone

Some good info for you my friend

Good Day, Lost4 words

Debated that author on line years ago... so I will leave you with the same thing he was left with.

Please correctly understand the Doctrine of Sola Scripture:



First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "


In Him,

Bill

 

[Lost4words]

Good Day, Lost4 words

Debated that author on line years ago... so I will leave you with the same thing he was left with.

Please correctly understand the Doctrine of Sola Scripture:



First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas' eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.

Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church's authority to teach God's truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as "the pillar and foundation of the truth." The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.

Thirdly, it is not a denial that God's Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.

And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.

What then is sola scriptura?

The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the "rule of faith" for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. "


In Him,

Bill

Catholicism is Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

 

[BBAS 64]

Catholicism is Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

Good Day, Lost4words

I do understand the teaching of the church that you affirm membership to. I am not a member of the Roman Church and understand the roles of these things in that Church.

Cardinal Ratzinger


“It is important to note that only Scripture is defined in terms of what is: it is stated that Scripture is the word of God consigned to writing. Tradition, however, is described only functionally, in terms of what it does: it hands on the word of God, but is not the word of God.” See Joseph Ratzinger’s “The Transmission of Divine Revelation” in Herbert Vorgrimler, ed., Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II (New York: Herder and Herder, 1969), Vol. 3, p. 194.

In Him,

Bill

 

[klutedavid]

1,000 of protestant denominations who 'interpret' scripture uniquely. Differing views and opinions.

On these very forums you will find non denoms too who believe only they have the correct interpretation/view/opinion on what scripture is saying.

I prefer to stick with the Catholic church on what scripture is saying. And, after reading scripture, i must say i cannot see anything that turns me away from that view.

Well you just admitted your allegiance.

I prefer to stick with the Catholic church on what scripture is saying.

Your claim is that the Catholic church and it's specific interpretation of various verses in the scripture is correct.

Yet you know full well that the Catholic church holds their own church tradition above any interpretation of the scripture.

Protestants claim the Bible is the only rule of faith, meaning that it contains all of the material one needs for theology and that this material is sufficiently clear that one does not need apostolic tradition or the Church’s magisterium (teaching authority) to help one understand it. In the Protestant view, the whole of Christian truth is found within the Bible’s pages. Anything extraneous to the Bible is simply non-authoritative, unnecessary, or wrong.

Catholics, on the other hand, recognize that the true “rule of faith”—as expressed in the Bible itself—is Scripture plus apostolic tradition, as manifested in the living teaching authority of the Catholic Church, to which were entrusted the oral teachings of Jesus and the apostles, along with the authority to interpret Scripture correctly. (Catholic answers)

 

[klutedavid]

Catholicism is Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition

The Catholic church maintains that there authority is based in their tradition to interpret the scripture correctly.

So more formally, the Catholic church claims by tradition do they interpret the scripture. Not so much a combination of tradition and scripture as such.

 

[klutedavid]

1,000 of protestant denominations who 'interpret' scripture uniquely. Differing views and opinions.

On these very forums you will find non denoms too who believe only they have the correct interpretation/view/opinion on what scripture is saying.

I prefer to stick with the Catholic church on what scripture is saying. And, after reading scripture, i must say i cannot see anything that turns me away from that view.

There are also a thousand denominations in Catholicism. Every year Catholic denominations come and go depending on papal declarations.

Vatican one and two shook the foundations of the Catholic church. For example, once the Catholic church stopped saying the mass in Latin, a multitude of conservative Catholic denominations were shattered and left the Catholic church.

 

[Albion]

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

There are four or five commonly-held views about this. Other than the Catholic one, which is impossible, the most "popular" interpretation is that Christ had plans for Peter, and he was making a little joke on the meaning of Peter's name.

But he wasn't giving him a blank check (as him calling Peter "Satan" a few lines further on might indicate!), and it also doesn't mean that he was making him the head of the universal church.

The Roman Catholic Church itself didn't start making the claim that this verse referred to a Papacy until almost 300 years afterwards, which ought to tell us something.

 

[klutedavid]

There are four or five commonly-held views about this. Other than the Catholic one, which is impossible, the most "popular" interpretation is that Christ had plans for Peter, and he was making a little joke on the meaning of Peter's name.

But he wasn't giving him a blank check (as him calling Peter "Satan" a few lines further on might indicate!), and it also doesn't mean that he was making him the head of the universal church.

The Roman Catholic Church itself didn't start making the claim that this verse referred to a Papacy until almost 300 years afterwards, which ought to tell us something.

Which 'Papacy' are you referring to?

The Ostrogothic Papacy, Byzantine Papacy, and Frankish Papacy.

 

[com7fy8]

Can you provide evidence that Peter never went to Rome?

First, there is no direct scripture statement that Peter went to Rome. In the Book of Acts we see how Paul went there, since Paul is our Apostle to the Gentiles > Galatians 2:7-8 > and Rome was a Gentile area, and Jesus said that Paul would appear before Gentile rulers in order to witness to them.

But Peter did go to the Antioch which was used by the church for certain leadership meeting . . . it seems to me. Also, Jerusalem was used.

It was Paul's responsibility to take the Gospel to Gentiles, including by going to meet Caesar.

You can read the First Epistle of Clement. My take is > first, nowhere in this letter does the letter itself say a Clement wrote it. Plus, "we" and "us" and "our" is used, never "I". And I find this epistle to be rather Biblical, even though how ones use this message and represent it is not Biblical and things stated are not based on the letter's actual content. So, I see that certain religious people could be trying to piggy-back on its credibility, claiming it as giving them authority, though its description of qualified leaders does not at all match with the apparent character of some number of publicly known religious leaders; and the Epistle of Clement itself does not make some number of claims which certain people make about themselves.

So, people may claim it, but it does not claim them!

And it is claimed this epistle came from Rome. Well, if it is from Rome, does it anywhere give any claim that Peter ever was in Rome?? I say, it is a rather credible message, but it does not name any Clement as being a pope, nor does it say Peter ever was in Rome. And you can make sure of if it makes any direct claim of Peter being the overall pope of the Body of Christ. I think it does not, but don't trust my memory, please

 

[AMM]

Orthodox here. My answer is based off of a very detailed and interesting paper by an Orthodox theologian, Philip Sherrard: Church, Papacy, and Schism.

In short the rock upon which the Church is built is:
Christ,
Peter,
The Apostles,
Peter’s Confession of Faith, and
The Bishops

So it’s really a both-and, not an either-or.

 

[Albion]

Which 'Papacy' are you referring to?

The Ostrogothic Papacy, Byzantine Papacy, and Frankish Papacy.

Those aren't different 'Papacies,' just different episodes in the history of the Papacy.

 

[klutedavid]

The thousands of different denominations came hundreds of years after Catholicism. Each clamouring with their own unique take on scripture!

Some church movements existed before the formal declaration by the church in Rome.

Church divisions have existed since the time of the apostle Paul. Even Paul himself mentioned this division, these factions, in his letter to the Corinthians.

1 Corinthians 1:12
Now I mean this, that each one of you is saying, “I am of Paul,” and “I of Apollos,” and “I of Cephas,” and “I of Christ.”

The followers of the factional group identified above as Cephas (Peter) are the present day Catholics.

 

[Albion]

None of the others is identified by the term Papacy. But if that answer doesn't suffice, I was referring to the institution built around the bishop of Rome which claims universal jurisdiction over the Christian church.

 

[Athanasius377]

I have no issue in calling Peter the Rock on whose foundation the Church is to be built. I think that is the best and simplest explanation of what is going on in the text. Recall Peter calls the Lord the Christ the Son of the Living God. The Lord responds with calling Peter Rock. Where I would depart is with the interpretation that show horns the papacy into the text. That is a matter of later ecclesiastical development.

 

[klutedavid]

Those aren't different 'Papacies,' just different episodes in the history of the Papacy.

Two popes existed during the Ostrogoth papacy.

The role of the Ostrogoths became clear in the first schism. On November 22, 498, both Pope Symmachus and Antipope Laurentius were elected pope. (wikipedia)

Which pope do you favor?

 

[klutedavid]

None of the others is identified by the term Papacy. But if that answer doesn't suffice, I was referring to the institution built around the bishop of Rome which claims universal jurisdiction over the Christian church.

But that did not arrive 300 years later?

 

[com7fy8]

My final question is: What did Jesus actually mean? Was Peter The Rock, or was Jesus himself the foundation of the whole church? Is there a counter-argument to the Catholic Article and the Protestant, where does the "conflict" meet its end?

Both sides of an argument can be wrong, and each might have something which can fit with what the other has.

Paul is very clear that Jesus is the one foundation of the Church.

1 Corinthians 3:11

Acts 4:8-12 > this has what Peter says, not a quote of Paul but of Peter, in the Book of Acts > Jesus is the chief cornerstone of the church.

And in Peter's Epistle, he also says >

1 Peter 2:4-8.

Again, the chief cornerstone is Jesus. And Peter says to come to Jesus > "to Him" > Peter does not say to come to him or to Mary or a certain religious leader.

And Jesus Himself says >

"'Come to Me, all you who labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light.'" (Matthew 11:28-30)

And our Apostle Paul says "we" "first trusted in Christ" > in Ephesians 1:12.

But there are various groups who would have us come to them and trust in them. There is no one group who does this.

Even so, Hebrews 13:17 says to obey the ones who have rule over us. This means ones who are qualified, which Paul describes in 1 Timothy 3:1-10. These ones lead by example, which our Apostle Peter says > 1 Peter 5:3. So, we trust God to have us know who He trusts to take care of us, including by their example.