On This Rock I Will Build My Church

[Guojing]

The CHurch in Jerusalem was first. The thing is most of the western world read Latin so the Roman Church became the most influential and St Peret as the Bishop of Rome was "First among equals." The Roman Church had more influence in all of the councils and the western Church was united under Rome.

That's why Rome became so important under St Peter.

Hmm, I am asking whether do you accept that those scripture references indicated that James have replaced Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church?

Or do you have a different understanding of those passages?

I mean, if by the end of Acts, Peter is no longer heading the Jerusalem church, how could he end up being the "bishop of Rome"?

 

[rturner76]

Hmm, I am asking whether do you accept that those scripture references indicated that James have replaced Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church?

Or do you have a different understanding of those passages?

I mean, if by the end of Acts, Peter is no longer heading the Jerusalem church, how could he end up being the "bishop of Rome"?

Because the Apostles built churches everywhere they went. It started in the middle east in the Holy City and spread from there. Apostles built churches and moved on to start other churches. I don't deny that James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem at all.

It's just that as The Church (the universal church) grew, Byzantium and Rome became more influential. The Greek and Roman Churches saw St Peter as "Primus" of "first among equals" as Bishop of Rome. When the Latin liturgy came out, it spread all over the Roman Empire which included everything from Italy to Great Britain. James' Church though older simply did not have the influence of the Greek nor Roman Churches.

That's doesn't diminish James' role as a co-founder of the Universal Church.

 

[Guojing]

Because the Apostles built churches everywhere they went. It started in the middle east in the Holy City and spread from there. Apostles built churches and moved on to start other churches. I don't deny that James was the head of the Church in Jerusalem at all.

It's just that as The Church (the universal church) grew, Byzantium and Rome became more influential. The Greek and Roman Churches saw St Peter as "Primus" of "first among equals" as Bishop of Rome. When the Latin liturgy came out, it spread all over the Roman Empire which included everything from Italy to Great Britain. James' Church though older simply did not have the influence of the Greek nor Roman Churches.

That's doesn't diminish James' role as a co-founder of the Universal Church.

I see, so in that case, since you believe that James took over from Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church, can I conclude that the Roman Catholic belief that Peter is the bishop of the Church in Rome, does not actually need the statement by Jesus to Peter in Matthew that "On This Rock I Will Build My Church" as its foundation?

Rather, that belief is based on non-scripture account in your 2nd paragraph?

It's just that as The Church (the universal church) grew, Byzantium and Rome became more influential. The Greek and Roman Churches saw St Peter as "Primus" of "first among equals" as Bishop of Rome. When the Latin liturgy came out, it spread all over the Roman Empire which included everything from Italy to Great Britain. James' Church though older simply did not have the influence of the Greek nor Roman Churches.

 

[rturner76]

I see, so in that case, since you believe that James took over from Peter as the head of the Jerusalem church, can I conclude that the Roman Catholic belief that Peter is the bishop of the Church in Rome, does not actually need the statement by Jesus to Peter in Matthew that "On This Rock I Will Build My Church" as its foundation?

Rather, that belief is based on non-scripture account in your 2nd paragraph?

Peter was always the Rock, I thought you already understood that. He just didn't stay in Jerusalem as long as James did. When he left, he handed it off as he did with all of the other Churches he planted. James was head of The Church in Jerusalem, not the Universal Church.

 

[Guojing]

Peter was always the Rock, I thought you already understood that. He just didn't stay in Jerusalem as long as James did. When he left, he handed it off as he did with all of the other Churches he planted. James was head of The Church in Jerusalem, not the Universal Church.

But if Peter was always the Rock, why do you think he was afraid of the "Men from James" in Galatians 2:12, which took place after Acts 15?

Obviously something has changed from Jesus proclamation to him in Matthew, to post Acts 15, would you agree?

That was my question to you, how would you understand those scripture passages?

 

[Valletta]

Preferring to call the church the "Catholic" church rather than the Roman Catholic Church comes from the claim that the institution ruled from Rome and the supremacy of the Pope, is the only true Church founded by Jesus Christ Himself.

It's the name of our Church, I gave you a link to our website at the Vatican. Please respect that.

 

[Bob Crowley]

Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

It does NOT say "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on you I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower you." So clearly this doesn't refer to the man Peter. It refers to Peter's declaration, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Peter is not a rock or an "it".

Where in Scripture does it say that Peter founded "Christ's church"?

We'll add the next verse, and point out that in line one Jesus calls Peter his literal name "Simon son of Jonah" and in the next breath changes his name to Peter, based on the Greek word "petros" for "rock". Christ referred to Peter as the "rock" by changing his name from Simon to Peter just to make it very clear.

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 19I 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 we have the last line "Whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Christ was setting up His church on Peter, the "Rock" as a name given to Peter, and He was giving that office authority. As my old Protestant pastor said to me once, "What's the use of having a church if you're not going to give it any authority?"

Before you start on the business of the Greek "little rock", Christ would have been speaking Aramaic, and the word He would have used would have been "Kephas", which had one meaning only viz. "Rock". But the vagaries of Greek grammar meant that the context of the word changed slightly when the Gospel was translated years later into Greek.

Peter duly went to Rome and apostolic succession has continued ever since. It certainly didn't start with Martin Luther.

The church is still going, and it will continue, no matter how many try to deny the obvious meaning of Matthew 16:18.

End of story.

 

[Guojing]

We'll add the next verse, and point out that in line one Jesus calls Peter his literal name "Simon son of Jonah" and in the next breath changes his name to Peter, based on the Greek word "petros" for "rock". Christ referred to Peter as the "rock" by changing his name from Simon to Peter just to make it very clear.



Then we have the last line "Whatever YOU bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever YOU loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Christ was setting up His church on Peter, the "Rock" as a name given to Peter, and He was giving that office authority. As my old Protestant pastor said to me once, "What's the use of having a church if you're not going to give it any authority?"

Before you start on the business of the Greek "little rock", Christ would have been speaking Aramaic, and the word He would have used would have been "Kephas", which had one meaning only viz. "Rock". But the vagaries of Greek grammar meant that the context of the word changed slightly when the Gospel was translated years later into Greek.

Peter duly went to Rome and apostolic succession has continued ever since. It certainly didn't start with Martin Luther.

The church is still going, and it will continue, no matter how many try to deny the obvious meaning of Matthew 16:18.

End of story.

So could I ask you the same question?

If Peter was always the Rock, given that office authority by Jesus himself, how did he end up being afraid of the "Men from James" in Galatians 2:12, which took place after Acts 15?

 

[Valletta]

So could I ask you the same question?

If Peter was always the Rock, given that office authority by Jesus himself, how did he end up being afraid of the "Men from James" in Galatians 2:12, which took place after Acts 15?

Jesus renamed Simon as Rock. Popes are men, they are not perfect. It is a job the Rock was given, the other Apostles had other roles. Renaming him did not make him better or worse than the other Apostles.

 

[Guojing]

Jesus renamed Simon as Rock. Popes are men, they are not perfect. It is a job the Rock was given, the other Apostles had other roles. Renaming him did not make him better or worse than the other Apostles.

But my point is, he started off in early Acts, obviously as the leader of the church of Jewish believers. You just need to read Acts 2 and 3 to have that sense.

Would you agree that something has changed by the middle of Acts?

 

[Bob Crowley]

You're expecting the church to have its eternal blueprint set up by the middle of Acts, as though a bunch of persecuted Christians have got their historical blueprint all lined up and neatly configured in Microsoft Project after a handful of years had passed.

It took time for Christ's statements to take effect. The Scriptures weren't officially canonised for hundreds of years. But it didn't take long for the early church fathers to begin referring to St. Peter as the rock on which Christ founded his church, and the episcopate which flowed from his office.

Christ's statement at another time was "I will lead you into all the truth." That implied the passage of time.

Peter’s Successors — Church Fathers

IRENAEUS
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

CYPRIAN OF CARTHAGE (200-258AD)
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. … ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that UNITY. . . .

What we've got now though is a bunch of self appointed apostles who give themselves the right to set up their own churches, and at the same time cast aspersions on the unity of the church Christ set up in very clear terms on the apostle Peter.

Christ was God in the flesh and if God says something, He expects us to take Him seriously.

 

[Bob Crowley]

So could I ask you the same question?

If Peter was always the Rock, given that office authority by Jesus himself, how did he end up being afraid of the "Men from James" in Galatians 2:12, which took place after Acts 15?

He was afraid because for the simple reason that he was human, and had been Jewish all his life. Old habits die hard. That was the clear headed brilliance of St. Paul - he was a Jew's Jew, a former pharisee and a good one. But he could see that Christ wanted to reach out to all nations without being strait jacketed by Jewish laws and customs.

It was the same reason he denied Christ three times. But Christ reinstated him, after getting a resolution from Peter three times.

The "infallibility" of popes isn't due to their personal character. it only applies when they speak ex-cathedra on a matter of faith and morals that applies to the whole church, as one priest said to me. At that time, God is speaking through them. At that time, what they bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and if they loose something on earth, it is loosed in heaven.

He put it another way - if the Pope was personally infallible, and he gave you a tip for next Saturday's horse races, it would have to win.

If Pope John Paul II had said in 1984 that "Fine Cotton" was a favourite to win his race, I can just see him fronting up to the judgement seat some years later with a bunch of angels off to one side wanting to know why he'd given that tip...

fine cotton affair - Search (bing.com)

 

[pescador]

Here is how the Bible describes "the pillar of the Roman Catholic denomination"...

Galatians 2:11-14, "When Cephas [Peter] came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas [Peter] in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?"

Notice that this occurred after Jesus said "on this rock I will build my church".

 

[pescador]

You're expecting the church to have its eternal blueprint set up by the middle of Acts, as though a bunch of persecuted Christians have got their historical blueprint all lined up and neatly configured in Microsoft Project after a handful of years had passed.

It took time for Christ's statements to take effect. The Scriptures weren't officially canonised for hundreds of years. But it didn't take long for the early church fathers to begin referring to St. Peter as the rock on which Christ founded his church, and the episcopate which flowed from his office.

Christ's statement at another time was "I will lead you into all the truth." That implied the passage of time.

Peter’s Successors — Church Fathers

What we've got now though is a bunch of self appointed apostles who give themselves the right to set up their own churches, and at the same time cast aspersions on the unity of the church Christ set up in very clear terms on the apostle Peter.

Christ was God in the flesh and if God says something, He expects us to take Him seriously.

Read my previous post #93, then tell me about your wonderful "St Peter". He was a deeply flawed man, hypocritical and afraid. He never founded any church; only Christ did that.

 

[pescador]

"For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles." Galatians 2:8

Clearly this shows that Peter was never the head of the church (whatever that means; Jesus is the head of the church). Peter was an apostle to the Jews (but, as stated above, he was a coward) so unless Catholics are Jews they've got the wrong guy.

 

[rturner76]

"For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles." Galatians 2:8

Clearly this shows that Peter was never the head of the church (whatever that means; Jesus is the head of the church). Peter was an apostle to the Jews (but, as stated above, he was a coward) so unless Catholics are Jews they've got the wrong guy.

St Peter was the founder of the Roman CHurch which dominated the western world so.....The Church he founded had way more followers than any other. Doesn't mean he wasn't flawed but it means he set up the church that would influence the western world's Christianity for 2000 years.

He chose to eat with the Jews because they had different dietary laws so the two groups could not eat together. It had nothing to do with Peter denying that Gentiles were Christian. He took Christianity to the Pagans of Rome and the Romans it seems were not required to be circumcised as most Roman Catholics even today are uncircumcised.

 

[pescador]

You're expecting the church to have its eternal blueprint set up by the middle of Acts, as though a bunch of persecuted Christians have got their historical blueprint all lined up and neatly configured in Microsoft Project after a handful of years had passed.

It took time for Christ's statements to take effect. The Scriptures weren't officially canonised for hundreds of years. But it didn't take long for the early church fathers to begin referring to St. Peter as the rock on which Christ founded his church, and the episcopate which flowed from his office.

Christ's statement at another time was "I will lead you into all the truth." That implied the passage of time.

Peter’s Successors — Church Fathers





What we've got now though is a bunch of self appointed apostles who give themselves the right to set up their own churches, and at the same time cast aspersions on the unity of the church Christ set up in very clear terms on the apostle Peter.

Christ was God in the flesh and if God says something, He expects us to take Him seriously.

Irenaeus and Cyprian of Carthage were just men, influential but not infallible. It is very strange that a Catholic can write about the unity of the church when their doctrine clearly states that their denomination is the one true church.

Do you know who founded the one true church? Jesus. Do you know who is the head of the church? Jesus.

 

[Valletta]

Irenaeus and Cyprian of Carthage were just men, influential but not infallible. It is very strange that a Catholic can write about the unity of the church when their doctrine clearly states that their denomination is the one true church.

Do you know who founded the one true church? Jesus. Do you know who is the head of the church? Jesus.

Wrong. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. "Catholic" means "universal." Irenaeus and Cyprian of Carthage were indeed men, knowledgeable of the Word of God. They knew that Jesus renamed Simon as Rock, the original Aramaic name Kepha (Cephas) is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

Wrong. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. "Catholic" means "universal." Irenaeus and Cyprian of Carthage were indeed men, knowledgeable of the Word of God. They knew that Jesus renamed Simon as Rock, the original Aramaic name Kepha (Cephas) is preserved within the mostly Koine Greek text.

Oh. That clears it up. I attend a Methodist/Presbyterian Union church, and therefore I am truly a Catholic in the full sense of the word. When I was involved in a Pentecostal church, that was a Catholic church as well, by your definition. Also, I spent 8 years as a member of a Baptist church, as a true Catholic. This is because the Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, and Pentecostal churches are all part of the universal Catholic Church. This means that I don't have to attend a church that has priests, Mass, or observe the supremacy of the pope. I can continue to worship God in my present church, as I am, and still remain a part of the universal Catholic Church.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

The church is still going, and it will continue, no matter how many try to deny the obvious meaning of Matthew 16:18.

End of story.

Quite right! And I am a true Catholic because I am part of that Church that Jesus founded. Because the Scripture says that those who have received Christ have the right to call themselves children of God, then I am a true child of God because I have received Jesus Christ as my Saviour. This makes me a integral part of the Catholic Church along with every other Catholic believer.