first church?????????

[thereselittleflower]

Thank you for pointing this out to me, and I agree.

But Tertullian did not believe the Bishop of Rome to be the succesor to Peter. In fact, Tertullian insulted the Bishop of Rome, even calling him Pontifous Maximus, which at the time, was the cheif pagan preist.

Hi Bulldog, I am glad that was helpful . .

Can you point me to what reference you are using for Tertullian calling a Bishop of Rome Pontifous Maximus?

I did a quick search and did not find that exact term.

Did you mean Pontifex Maximus?

Tertullian called Pope Callistus "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of bishops" when he disagreed with Callistus willingness to accept repentant sinners back into the fold . . Yes, this was an attempt to be insulting, but actually, instead of detracting in any way from the idea that the Callistus was the successor of Peter, his using these terms, even in a derrogatory way, only reinforces the fact that Tertullian recongized the power and authority the Pope, the successor of Peter had within the Church, and that it extended beyond his own bishopric in Rome to the whole Church.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Tertullian had by this time become a Montanist Heretic and had put himself in PERSONAL opposition to the Pope. He recognized that the Pope was the successor to Peter as was shown above previously, yet that did not stop him from having a certain level of PERSONAL animosity towards a particular Pope because he disagreed with that Pope's decisions.

By this time, he had put himself outside the Church as a known heretic. So, to use his words here to somehow demonstrate that since he insulted the Pope in this manner, that he was attacking the office of Pope itself fails on two points . .

The first, it was not the office of Pope he was attacking, but a particular person who sat in that office - he had a personal beef with this particular Pope due to decisions this particular Pope made, not with the office itself;

And second, he was now a heretic, a Montanist, and so no longer spoke as one within the Church about Church matters.


I hppe this was also helpful.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

And I absolutly agree, whoever I do not believe Origen believed the kesy alone were given to Peter alone. He also identifies Paul as the founder of the church:

"I do not know how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the Churches that are in Christ." (Against Celsus, 1:63)

EDIT: I thought that Origen's commentarias on Matthew were written in 247, no?

Hi Bulldog . . the source I was reading said towards the end of the second century . . Do you have a source that dates it at 247 AD?


Peace in Him!

 

[elijahlexis]

Do you want to get together a group and try to change that? I'm ready for unity again.

READY WILLING AND ABLE THROUGH HIM!!!!!!!!

 

[elijahlexis]

ok,
i didnt ask for all the opinions ------------and i would stand that they are , for the most part, opinions, (not revelation from God)
there is so much given to the writings of so many men
and there is so little given to the INSPIRED WORD OF GOD
i could pull literally thousands of opinions, from a thousand non catholic brothers and sisters
people that are very respected within their own organizations
that would contradict what most of you have said and purpoted as truth about the RCC and its place as the first church
but i have not
lots of reading in this thread, and i have recieved some revelation
but none that would suggestion or even point to the fact that the RCC is "the true church"
if all i read was what the RCC said about itself, i would probably be RCC
but i choose to seek God, not an organization
so it is not the case
i would say that i am non-denominational because of what i have seen religion do to so many people..............................turn them from God
LOVE YOU ALL
ELIJALEXIS

 

[Spclone34]

non Christians posting in a christian area

 

[Bizzlebin Imperatoris]

Just a note: Pastor was not a word often used. It appears 1 time in the entire Bible.

 

[Bulldog]

Hi Bulldog . . the source I was reading said towards the end of the second century . . Do you have a source that dates it at 247 AD?


Peace in Him!

Here, but it's probably a less realiable source than yours:

http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cach...5a.htm+Origen+commentary+on+Matthew+247&hl=en

Tertullian called Pope Callistus "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of bishops" when he disagreed with Callistus willingness to accept repentant sinners back into the fold . . Yes, this was an attempt to be insulting, but actually, instead of detracting in any way from the idea that the Callistus was the successor of Peter, his using these terms, even in a derrogatory way, only reinforces the fact that Tertullian recongized the power and authority the Pope, the successor of Peter had within the Church, and that it extended beyond his own bishopric in Rome to the whole Church.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Tertullian had by this time become a Montanist Heretic and had put himself in PERSONAL opposition to the Pope. He recognized that the Pope was the successor to Peter as was shown above previously, yet that did not stop him from having a certain level of PERSONAL animosity towards a particular Pope because he disagreed with that Pope's decisions.

By this time, he had put himself outside the Church as a known heretic. So, to use his words here to somehow demonstrate that since he insulted the Pope in this manner, that he was attacking the office of Pope itself fails on two points . .

The first, it was not the office of Pope he was attacking, but a particular person who sat in that office - he had a personal beef with this particular Pope due to decisions this particular Pope made, not with the office itself;

And second, he was now a heretic, a Montanist, and so no longer spoke as one within the Church about Church matters.

Yes, Pontifous Maximus is the phrase.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have no statements or reason to believe Tertullain believed the pope and the pope alone was the succesor to Peter.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Here, but it's probably a less realiable source than yours:

I wouldn't necessarily say that . . I would have to research it more deeply, but I have found others that agree with yours though, so I would have to figure out where the discrepency comes from.

Yes, Pontifous Maximus is the phrase.

I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and there wasn't something else you wanted to bring my attention to . . . Thanks for clarifying.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have no statements or reason to believe Tertullain believed the pope and the pope alone was the succesor to Peter.

I guess I would ask what would give you reason to believe that Tertulian believed that the pope and the pope alone was NOT the succesor to Peter, prior to his abandoning orthodox christianity in favor of heresy.

We see that before he went into heresy, he was very clear that when Jesus gave the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, it was only to Peter, not to the Church, and the same with binding and loosing . .

the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? "On thee," He says, "will I build My Church;" and, "I will give to thee the keys," not to the Church; and, "Whatsoever thou shall have loosed or bound," not what they shall have loosed or bound.
​

Maybe we can look at some other quotes by him.

Here is one where he speaks regarding succession and states who is the direct successor of Peter in Rome:

Tertullian

"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
​

Above, he is speaking of the direct line of succession. This was before his departure from the Church and his embracing of the heresy of Montanism. Here is a little synopsis of Tertullian's life in regards to his conversion to Christianity, then to Montanism:

But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, "De Ecstasi", written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: "In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment." In fact Tertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences. Catholics are the Psychici as opposed to the "spiritual" followers of the Paraclete; the Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love to remarry. Tertullian evidently exaggerated those parts of the Montanist teaching which appealed to himself, caring little for the rest. He has no idea of making a pilgrimage to Pepuza, but he speaks of joining in spirit with the celebration of the Montanist feasts in Asia Minor. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas are by some thought to reflect a period a Carthage when the Montanist teaching was arousing interest and sympathy but had not yet formed a schism.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
​

When one reads Tertullian, one must keep in mind that he did fully embrace heresy (Montanism) and that this particular heresy rebelled against the idea of Church hierarchy; and that this happened fairly early on, 10-15 years after his conversion to Christianity. To the degree his works reflect the heresy of Montanism, one must hold those reflections at arm's length, as they do not reflect the understanding of the Church, but that of heretics.

Here is an explanation of Montanism .

http://www.ntcanon.org/Montanism.shtml

Even so, in regards to our subject, we do see that Tertullian still backs up the Catholic understanding of who Peter is, and so his words are useful in this regard - that even as a heertic, he still recognized the unique position Jesus placed Peter in as the Rock Jesus said he would build His Church on and as the only one Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to. That he continued to ddo so, even as a heretic, is quite remarkable in my opinion.


I hope this offered some additional insights into the question of Tertullian.


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Good day, therese,

I will try to deal with many of these, some a little later, but for now....



Cyprian also believed all Bishops to be the succesor of Peter, not just the Bishop of Rome.

Our Lord whose precepts and warnings we ought to observe, determining the honour of a Bishop and the ordering of His own Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, I say unto thee, that thou art Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Thence the ordination of Bishops, and the ordering of the Church, runs down along the course of time and line of succession, so that the Church is settled upon her Bishops; and every act of the Church is regulated by these same Prelates (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (The Epistles of S. Cyprian, Ep. 33.1).


​

Hi again Bulldog

I thought we could look more closely at Cyprian as well now. .

The quote you presented above doesn't say what it aapears you are using it to say, that all bishops are heirs of Peter equally, directly . . It is speaking about the ordination of Bishops and ordering of the Church and how it runs down through time in succession . . That is not the same as saying that all Bishops are the direct heirs of Peter, but it is speaking to the relationship of those Bishops in succession (for not all were originally ordained by Peter) and the Church to Peter. That relationship is to be one of unity as my previous quotes form Cyprian indicate, not of equal power and authority.





Again:

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.
​

He continues:

Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.
​

Cyprian spoke of unity and authority on 3 levels . .the local, the regional (metropolitan, of which he was a Bishop with such authority) and universal (which is with the chair of Peter and thus his successor, the Bishop of Rome).




Peace in Him!

 

[SolomonVII]

The First Church was the Early Church. The first fracture was the Oriental Church after the Third Ecumenical Council but before the Fourth. The second fracture was between the Church in the West, based in the Vatican (the Catholic Church) and the Church in the East, based in Constantinople (the Orthodox Church). The third fracture was the Anglican/Lutheran/Presbyterian/Anabaptist break. Even then, the Anglicans, Lutherans, and the Presbyterians believed in the actual Institution of the Church (something many of today's Calvinists forget). The Anabaptists were the first to actually say that the Institution of the Church doesn't exist (as far as I know).

The First Church will come about again when all the splinters come back together.

I am not too familiar with the first fracture referred to. I take it this was a fracture that effected the eastern branch of the Church? Was the split over doctrine only, and does this have anything to do with the Nestorian heresy? If so, this schism can be attributable to the oriental church becoming too embroiled in philsophical matters. This was the case of the oriental cjurch to a much greater extent that the Roman Church, which was always more concerned with the practical matters of governance than the finer and more abstract theological details that the orientalists concerned themselves with.

The final schism between eastern and western catholic orthodoxy is as likely as much to do with politics and the widening gap between the two branches due to poor communications as anything else. Long before the definitive break in 1054, practically speaking the two branches were functionally independant of each other.

in terms of what would be the third schism, acording to the above post, what started out as a protest about the corruption of the political organization of the Roman Catholic Church, has developed into a complete shattering of the doctrine itself. Once no authority is a valid source of Church doctrine, and the individual is the final arbitrer of truth, what was once held as Truth has no become mere opinion.

Due to the unofficial, perwecuted nature of the earliest church, there never was a time when a more orthodox viewpoint existed without many heresies and contrary views springing up from the same historical event of the crucifixion and resurrection. Paul's letters make this quite clear, and many believe that St John's Gospel was written partially as a reaction against the growing gnostic movement.

Nevertheless, the Orthodox/Catholic position is the only Christian tradition that demonstrably have been carried forth from the Pentecost. While ther do exist such modern groups such as ebionites and gnostics that make such claims, the claim that they have been a part of a continuous tradition over the last two millenium is at best, dubious.

If there is to be unity in Christian Truth, there must first be an acceptance of an authority to hep us arrive at what this Truth is. There does exist a scriptural basis for such an authority, and a tradition of how such an authority has been exercised in the Church since Christ.

To the extent that no authority is recognized, the lack of faith and meaning that now plagues modern society can only increase.

 

[thereselittleflower]

Good day, therese,

I will try to deal with many of these, some a little later, but for now....

Ambrose later explains what he means in other statements.

He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies ( Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).


from http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html
​

.

Hi again Bulldog . .

This is a quote I am not able to find in the online works of Ambrose, so it is difficult to comment on in its context, for its context is not readily available to me.

I would, however, point out two things. .

One, is this quote contains elipses . . so something is missing, and as we have seen before, that can very much affect our understanding of what the author is actually saying.

The other is to look more closely at the quote itself. Since we don't have the context, we have to be very careful not to read something into this that is not really there.

He speaks of Peter's confession and relates it directly to Peter's primacy . . but note this . . this is BEFORE Jesus has conferred ANY primacy on Peter and so is not speaking of that Primacy conferred by Jesus on Peter!

BEFORE the Keys are given to Peter. And as such, the primacy that Peter exercises BEFORE anything else has been give to him, is, and can only be, one of confession and faith from among the disciples . . .

It is because of THIS primacy of confession, for he was FIRST to confess Jesus was the Son of God, that Jesus then confers onto Peter the primacy of being the Rock that Jesus will build His Church on, the primacy of Peter holding the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the Primacy of binding and loosing given first to Peter. UP TO THIS POINT, Peter had NO primacy of rank or honor . .. this was then conferred onto him by Jesus after his confession.

Ambrose then says:

And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation
​

Ambrose is clearly saying Peter is the one Jesus called the foundation . . . he says "AND SO . . " . . relating what was said before to what comes next . .relating Peter's confession (words) about Christ to Jesus' confession (words) about Peter.

Now, right after this in your quote, there are elipses, and those mean something was cut out. How big, how small this chunck of information is, we don't know. But a new train of thought then is presented from elsewhere in Ambrose's writing. However, the source you quoted from makes it appear that this is a continuous train of thought about the exact same thing.

I highly doubt that.

Since the source of this quote is from the same site as the others that have elipses, which we now see removed portions that affect the way the quote itself is presented, I am highly supsicious that the same thing has happened here. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the work so cannot provide the full context for us to look at together.


So all I can do is leave you with my thoughts about it here. Taken the way the site you quoted from tries to present that quote above, it appears to contradict the other statements by Ambrose

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
​

But taken in the light that he is speaking of a primacy exercised by Peter BEFORE Jesus conferred on him the Primacy of the Office of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, etc, (i.e. that Peter had not yet been given any position of honor or station so when Peter made his confession of faith, he was at that time only exercising a type of primacy of confession and faith and only because he was the first of the Apostles to make such a confession) it fits in perfectly with Ambrose's other words about Peter and his office.


Peace in Him!

 

[SolomonVII]

The achilles heel of the Catholic Church will never be its teaching. The teaching itself is internally consistent, and the scriptural basis for all of the teaching is sound. The same Tradition that teaches the actual physical resurrevtion of Christ and the inspired nature of the bible is the same Traditon that places Peter as the primate of Rome.

The problem has never been the teaching. It has always been the practice. Certainly once the primacy and legitimacy of Peter's successor was questioned, the teachings of the various fragments of the Church began to differ, but initially the teaching itself was not what was controversial. It was the moral corruption of those who were not following their own teachings.

The ordinary men and women of eastern orthodoxy, for example, were never really concerned about the squabbles and politically maneuvrings between their patriarchs and leaders and the leaders of the western church. Long after the Schism of 1054, they still considered themselves to be unified with the whole of the Body of Christ. Their hearts only hardened against the catholicsm of the west after their own supposed brothers in Christ turned their crusades against Constantinopole, and committed sacreligious acts in the places of worship in ways that even the Moslem conquerors refrained from doing. Byzantine patriarchs never could accept the way that Rome made peace with barbarians such as Charlemagne, and with the foruth crusade, even the common man of the orient began to understand why this was so.

Likewise, in light of the immoral behavior of Catholic clergy and popes who openly had mistresses and homosexual lovers, the Protestant reformers from Hus to Luther did not regard the papacy as the Babylonian harlot because of faulty teaching, but because of the outrageous behavior of a very corrupt church leadership.

Even if it is scripturally sound to understand that Jesus chose Peter as the primary leader of His Church, as Christians have done from the very beginning, what is incomprehensible is why Jesus could have chosen such a man as the rock of the Church in the first place. Peter was continuously falling short and even Paul found occasion to rebuke him. Moreover what can be said about Peter can be said about his Catholic successors seventy times seven times.

And therin lies the lesson. The teachings of the Church have prevailed not because of the very real frailty of Peter and his successors, but because God promised it to be so. Truly, even the powers of Hell have not prevailed against the purity of the teaching. God bestowed the power to bind and unbind first to Peter, and also to the whole of the Apostolic Church. God will forgive us as we forgive each other. The only way to unbind each other from our trespasses is through forgiveness.

In terms of the Roman Catholic Church, there is much to be forgiven. And that is precisely what our current pope is asking of our brothers and sisters in Christ right now.

 

[rnmomof7]

Did Peter consider himself the foundation of the church ?

A reading of the NT does not support that .

 

[elijahlexis]

It is my belief that the above is correct based on what Peter says to Jesus and His response. When Peter tells Christ that "You are the Christ", that this is what Christ was taling about being the foundation. He (Christ) is the foundation. This is consistent with other themes in Scripture, which is an all-important key in formulating ideas about specific Scriptures.

not to mention that Christ said directly to peter, "get htee behind me satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"

and that, directly after Christ said "upon this rock i will build my church"

simon=sand
peter=little stone
Jesus= the rock

if the foundation aint right dont stand in the way of the building, it will fall eventually
and Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (the church/the rock)

i could go on
but for tonight, gotta go
peace all

 

[elijahlexis]

anyone ever read about the wise man and where he built his house
or where the foolish man built his?

just a thought

 

[thereselittleflower]

not to mention that Christ said directly to peter, "get htee behind me satan; thou art an offence unto me, for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men"

and that, directly after Christ said "upon this rock i will build my church"

And . .. . so? Had Jesus begun building His Church yet? Jesus said, "I WILL" . . that is at some point in the future . .

simon=sand
peter=little stone
Jesus= the rock

No, lithos means little stone, not petros/petra. Matthew did not use "lithos"

if the foundation aint right dont stand in the way of the building, it will fall eventually
and Christ said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (the church/the rock)

Absolutely right, which is why I have chosen to stand where I stand, in the Church Jesus founded on the Rock, Peter. I dion't want to be anywhere else . .I've already been there, done that . .Before becoming Catholic, there was a lot of shifting sand for Jesus to remove out of the way before He could begin building again rightly in my life. Now, I am part of the Church built on the Rock Jesus said He would build His 'Church on . . and it is ROCK SOLID.

i could go on

So could I


Peace in Him!

 

[thereselittleflower]

Hi elijah

Let me elaborate more on the issue of Jesus' immediate rebuke of Peter after making him the rock and giving him the Keys of the Kingdom and the power of binding and loosing.

As I mentioned above, Jesus building His Church on the Rock Peter is in the future . .Jesus in this passage is giving a promise to do so, stating what will be, not what already is.

As such, Peter had not yet assumed the office given, and the Church had not yet been started. That all happened after the resurrection.

After the resurrection, Jesus says to Peter "feed My sheep and tend My lambs" (John 12:15-17).

When Christ rebuked Peter, was he calling him the devil, our enemy satan, the arch fallen one?


No . . he was rebuking Peter for still thinking as a man does, and not as God does, even though Peter has the very best interests of Jesus, his friend, at heart.

The word "satan" means advesary or opponent. When Peter tried to stop Jesus from going to Jerusalem and suffering, he was UNWITTINLY opposing God's plan of salvation, so this use of the word "satan" emphasizes how very contrary Peter's thinking and intentions were to God's plan for Jesus to be Redeemer, and so necessitated such a stern rebuke, to expose this very fact.

Peter had not yet been made the head of the Church; it was a promised position, one he had been pre-selected for. So this rebuke does not in any way speak against the fact that Peter did become the Rock Jesus built His Church on as promised.


Now, in looking again at the Petros petra argument, lets look at it this way (I am going to quote an author as he says it very well):

If Jesus intended to call Peter a small stone, "He would have engaged in a bizarre and inexplicable wordplay"

a) Jesus calls Simon "blessed,"
b) He tells Simon he received revelation from God the Father
c) He gives him the new name of Petros
d) He turns right around and mocks Simon by telling him that he's really ust a pebble, and that He intends to build His Church on a real rock, a big rock, not Peter. And finally
e) after his moment of mocking Simon and his ironic new name, Christ shifts back to praising him, saying, "I give you the Keys of the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth is bound in heave, and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven." "

Patrick Madrid, Pope Fiction pg 54
​

It just doesn't make sense for Jesus to say all these grand and wonderful things about Peter and go so far as to give Peter a new name (and in the bible, when God has given someone a new name it is highly momentous and significant, so the new name is significant as well . . and there is nothing significant about being renamed "a small stoine" . . nothing significant about that at all.

Here is something else for you to consider and mull over regarding this name change.


Simon according to Strong's is translated from this Greek word:

G4613

Σίμων

Simōn

see'-mone

Of Hebrew origin [H8095]; Simon (that is, Shimon), the name of nine Israelites: - Simon. Compare G4826.

​

Now, let's look at the Hebrew lexicon for the word Shimon:

H7889

שׁימון

shîymôn

shee-mone'

Apparently for H3452; desert; Shimon, an Israelite: - Shimon.

​

Not just sand, but DESERT . .

Now, Peter's original name is DESERT, not just grains of sand.

A Desert is not something small, but something LARGE.

What is a desert?

DESERT, n. An uninhabited tract of land; a region in its natural state; a wilderness; a solitude; particularly, a vast sandy plain, as the deserts of Arabia and Africa. But the word may be applied to an uninhabited country covered with wood.

​

We are not talking about something you can hold in your hand or carry, or move . . we are talking about something VERY VERY LARGE .. . whole tracts of land, whole regions, vast areas.

Now, here is Simon, with a name that includes in its very nature the idea of vastness, largeness, and if we are to believe those who want to tell us that Petros, Peter's new name, only means a small stone, then we have Jesus taking away one name that means something vast, very, very large, to one that means something very small and insignificant, especially in comparison to what his original name referred to . .

That just doesn't fly.

Whenever God made a name change in the Old Tetament when He BLESSED someone and gave someone somthing, it was from something smaller to something bigger, something less significant to something more significant..

Our God does not change, so why should we consider that He reversed Himself here and changed Peter's name from something VAST and VERY LARGE to something very small and insignificant?

It just doesn't make sense . .

Now, let's look at this further . .

God is not in the habit of making insignificant name changes. So when He blesses Peter, and then bestows on Peter his new name, this is a very significant moment, and we need to recognize this.

God did not bestow on Peter a new INsignificant name . ..

He bestowed on Peter a VERY significant new name.

Peter's original name was Simon which means desert. This is vast place; very significant. But it is made of sand which shifts, is unstable, moves about with every wind, being blown about where ever the wind blows it, not suitable for building anything on except what is movable like tents; nothing solid or huge. That has to be built on Rock.

So, here is Simon with a name that means a vast large place of sand, a desert, but not signifying something suitable for building on.

Then here comes Jesus, and Jesus CHANGES his name, not to something insignificant, like a small stone, but to something not only just as significant, but even more so, something better, stronger, something now extremely stable, rock solid and dependable; something that does not shift around with the wind, something that can hold and support what is to be built on top it . . ROCK . .a MASSIVE Rock like the massive rock cliff there in Cesarea where Christ spoke those words.

For Christ to have changed his name from one that meant something vast to one that meant something very insignificant makes absolutely no sense whatseover, In fact, it would have been insulting, mocking, as Patrick Madrid points out above.

Look at it all again . . . That Peter was made the Rock that Jesus would build His Church upon is the only interpretation that makes any sense at all . .. (as improbable as it may seem to you)


Peace in Him!

 

[Harry the Heretic]

Theodoret Bishop of Cyr [Cyrus] (396-466)

"Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for 'On this rock,' He says, 'I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.' Wherefore too the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the churches, fixed no other foundation than this. 'I,' he says, 'as a wise master builder have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.' How then can they think of any other foundation, when they are bidden not to fix a foundation, but to build on that which is laid? The divine writer recognises Christ as the foundation, and glories in this title..."


Augustine of Hippo (354-430)

"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...."



Cyril of Alexandria (died 444)

"But why do we say that they are 'foundations of the earth'? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he 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. Likewise, the psalmist says: 'Its foundations are the holy mountains.' Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith."



Origen

And if we too have said like Peter, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, "Thou art Peter," etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add 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. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc....And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was.

 

[SolomonVII]

Under the Father's influence, Peter speaks of Jesus as being the Son of
the Living God, and receives the full blessing of Jesus.
No sooner had Peter recieved this revelation when he actually rebukes
Jesus, the Son of the living God. It was in this context that Jesus
rebukes Peter in turn.

Just as in the first instance, Peter is a vehicle for God to speak
through, in the next he becomes a vehicle for Satan to continue his
temptation of Jesus as was begun in the desert immediately following the
baptism of Christ. In the context of Jesus' own humanity, Peter's words, even if meant with the best of intentions, could only serve to tempt Jesus into believing in Himself in the traditional role of Messiah preparing to become King, rather than as the Suffering Servant about to be pierced. For this reason alone, peter needed to be rebuked.

There is no reason to assume that Peter had the best of intentions however. As some of the arguments between the apostles indicate, there was competition between them. they were very much interestd in who was the greatest among them.

For Peter in particular, it is posible to see jealousy and competitiveness toward even Jesus. There was the time, for example,when Jesus walked upon the water, and upon seeing this Peter just had to walk upon the water as well. Working from the prspective of his own ego, Peter of course could not do what Jesus was able. In this case Jesus' rebuke was a gentle reminder that faith alone was the essence of miracle.

The other apostles, even if they did not have the inflated and false sense of their own abilities and importance that Peter had of his, also demonstrated the same mindset as Peter. There was the time for example, when James and John had to be rebuked by Jesus for their desire to command fire to descend from the heavens and consume the Samaritans for turning their backs on Jesus.

And yet, according to Scripture, and affirmed in the Nicene Creed, Jesus not onlyt chose these twelve to be His apostles, but also to establish His Church upon the decisions of Peter and the apostles would continue to make after His Ascension. From His experience with the apostles and Peter, it is clear that He was not placing His faith so much in the person of Peter, but in the willingness His Father had already demosntrated to speak through Peter.

As Jesus had rebuked Peter during His earthly ministry, so too did Paul continue to rebuke Peter after Jesus returned to heaven. Evidently, Peter was no less humanly fallible even as he was assuming his authority over the Church that Jesus left in his charge until He returned. In spite of this fallibility, because people such as Paul were able to voice their opposition to wrong decisions that Peter was in the process of making, and because the Holy Spirit continued to communicate the Father's will to Peter in the form of a vision, Peter was able in the end to make the correct decision on the what the relationships between gentile and Jew were to become in the new Church.

It is an article of faith held by all Christians that Peter came to the correct decision in this regard. Moreover, correct decisions continued to be made as the scriptures and traditons of Christianity contiued to be laid out and decided upon by the successors of Peter through the formative years of the Church. The authority vested into the office of Peter by Jesus during his earthly ministry is the only Scriptural basis for such articles of faith.

 

[Harry the Heretic]

In spite of this fallibility, because people such as Paul were able to voice their opposition to wrong decisions that Peter was in the process of making, and because the Holy Spirit continued to communicate the Father's will to Peter in the form of a vision, Peter was able in the end to make the correct decision on the what the relationships between gentile and Jew were to become in the new Church.....

....It is an article of faith held by all Christians that Peter came to the correct decision in this regard. .

Yes Peter did come to the correct conclusion but it It seems to be James that held the final decision. In Acts, Jerusalem is the focal point of the church, and James is its leader. (Acts 21:17,18). Peter before having had a vision confirms the Gentile acceptance into the kingdom, however it is James that "ratifies" it and gives this law, " that we trouble not them... that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and fornication, and things strangled, and blood."

And this command was signed by the "apostles, elders and brethren" after Jame's advice along with Peter's revelation pleased the whole church as well as the apostles and elders.

It is James the "just" that is deferred to, even in 1 Cor when Paul states that the risen lord was seen "of James; then of all the apostles", Yet he was not an apostle himself, but refered to as one of the pillars of the church, along with Peter and John. James the just(not an apostle) was the 1st leader of the early church, not Peter.