Peter the Rock / Protestant and Catholic

[CharismaticLady]

I'm having some discussions with a friend of mine who is a Christian Catholic, in regards to the following verse:

18 “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

From this verse among others the Catholic church seem to legitimize the church and all it's traditions, doctrines and sacraments.

Was Jesus saying that the whole church was build upon Peter and his successors, and so established the Catholic Church as the One church, with the rest of all denominations being "broken" churches, scattered boats flowing astray from the Ark?

I'm trying to figure out the different interpretations of the the verse above from both a Catholic and Protestant point of view.

The two articles:

Is Peter the rock on which the Church is built? | CARM.org

Peter the Rock

Carm.com: The author is making the argument that the greek word "petra" (feminine), meaning little stone, and petros (masculine) meaning unmoveable rock.
"...you are Peter (πέτρος, petros) and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build My church..."

Later Peter is showing himself not as an immovable rock, but one that denies the Lord 3 times. The Catholic claim is that in the context Jesus is referring Peter as The Rock, the protestant however is making the context broader by what is happening later. I hope I'm making some sense, this is quite new to me.

The Catholic article makes its defence:
"As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.”"
‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’

The Catholic defence is that the protestant position is making a wrong interpretation of the Greek word Petros and Petra.

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?

Peter means pebble. Jesus is the Rock that we are part of. He is the chief cornerstone.

You have to read what Jesus means with spiritual eyes, like when they were standing in front of the temple and Jesus said, tear down this temple and in three days I will rebuild it. He was meaning Himself, just as He did with the Rock.

 

[BNR32FAN]

It isn't about an institution at all - the Church is made up of humans; one point of the Word of God's ministry is that we are living temples. Our bodies in two or more quantity establish Church; He is in the middle of those two+.

What the Word of God told Peter is that Peter is the foundation for the Hebrews turned Christian Church. And, ultimately, Peter was the "first" stone thrown on the foundation of the "Church" build by bodies of believers. This is a masonry reference: The Word of God is the cornerstone, which is a foundational stone around which the rest of the building (pebbles/petros/Peter et. al) is built.

By definition, Peter is the first pebble/rock, because he was the first disciple the Word of God met.

Actually Andrew, Peter’s brother was a disciple who introduced Peter to Jesus.

“Again the next day John was standing with two of his disciples, and he looked at Jesus as He walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!" The two disciples heard him speak, and they followed Jesus. And Jesus turned and saw them following, and said to them, "What do you seek?" They said to Him, "Rabbi (which translated means Teacher), where are You staying?" He said to them, "Come, and you will see." So they came and saw where He was staying; and they stayed with Him that day, for it was about the tenth hour. One of the two who heard John speak and followed Him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's brother. He found first his own brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which translated means Christ). He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas" (which is translated Peter).”
‭‭John‬ ‭1:35-42‬ ‭NASB‬‬

 

[parousia70]

Ok I agree that Jesus does say that He would build His church upon Peter but let’s face it apostolic succession failed. Between 1184AD-1870AD 99 Roman popes sanctioned the inquisitions and of which the Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these men during that time. So for 686 years apostolic succession failed 99 times. These men were not infallible and being chosen as the pope of the Roman Church does not guarantee that person is being guided by the Holy Spirit and representing Christ.

Well, I know the difference between the Church governmental offices instituted by Christ and carried out by the apostles in succession, and the fallible men who come and go in the roles, who either live up to the Honor and integrity of the office, or not.

Do you?

Even Judas, Chosen By Christ personally to fill the role of "apostle", did not live up the honor and integrity of the Office, so what did the apostles do? Did they Eliminate the role and call into question the legitimacy of the role of "apostle"? No. They chose another to take his place in that God Ordained Role (Acts 1:20)

Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Organizational authority and the "offices" set up within it, whether it be Bishops and Popes, Senators and Presidents, or PTA board members and PTA Presidents exist in the same legitimacy they were set up in, whether or not the individuals who come an go who hold the office temporarily, live up to the Honor of the office held. Just because we've had bad Popes doesn't negate the authority of the office itself, any more than the notion that because we've had bad presidents, it therefore negates the legitimacy of the office of POTUS.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do claim apostolic succession and have both scripture and history to back them. I don't know of any protestant denoms that can claim this or do claim it. Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, just like the President of the U.S.A.). Quite simply, God created a visible Church and who can deny it from scripture. Protestantism, on the other hand, is 20,000 or more denoms that teach a myriad of different things, do not recognize each other's authority or doctrines, do not work together, compete against each other, etc.etc. It seems impossible to me that anyone could claim protestantism as a legitimate form of the one true Church of scripture (or history).

 

[tz620q]

Ok I agree that Jesus does say that He would build His church upon Peter but let’s face it apostolic succession failed. Between 1184AD-1870AD 99 Roman popes sanctioned the inquisitions and of which the Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these men during that time. So for 686 years apostolic succession failed 99 times. These men were not infallible and being chosen as the pope of the Roman Church does not guarantee that person is being guided by the Holy Spirit and representing Christ.

Would you find comfort in apostolic succession failing? Does that somehow strengthen your love of Christ. Of course not. I would propose that you look at this as defined within the Catholic Church and not as stated within Protestant apologetics to incite hatred of the Catholic Church.

Firstly, apostolic succession does not guarantee an impeccable successor. It merely follows the format that the apostles started by laying on of hands and choosing leaders within the community. Those leaders choose other leaders to succeed them. Are these men perfect? Of course not. They make mistakes and Pope John Paul apologized for the mistakes of the Inquisitions after a laborious amount of research was done to actually derive some degrees of truth about the Church's part in them.

Secondly, infallibility does not include impeccability. If you want to talk about infallibility with a Catholic please use the definition that we use, not some mischaracterization. It does not offend me if you do; but it is counterproductive to fruitful discussion if we have different definitions.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Well, I know the difference between the Church governmental offices instituted by Christ and carried out by the apostles in succession, and the fallible men who come and go in the roles, who either live up to the Honor and integrity of the office, or not.

Do you?

Christ and the apostles came to build a Church that would exist forever (Eph 3:21; Matt 16:18-19), and that Church had leadership contained in "offices" (1 Tim 3:1,10; Acts 1:20; Rom 11:13, 12:4).

Offices have authority by virtue of their God-ordained existence, not by virtue of the person holding office. Psalm 109:8 affirms the nature of the offices of the Church--i.e., they are "offices," and they exist apart from the individual, and they continue perpetually for as long as the Melchizedek priesthood shall last (i.e., forever).

Organizational authority and the "offices" set up within it, whether it be Bishops and Popes, Senators and Presidents, or PTA board members and PTA Presidents exist in the same legitimacy they were set up in, whether or not the individuals who come an go who hold the office temporarily, live up to the Honor of the office held. Just because we've had bad Popes doesn't negate the authority of the office itself, any more than the fact we've had bad presidents doesn't negate the legitimacy of the office of POTUS.

Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do claim apostolic succession and have both scripture and history to back them. I don't know of any protestant denoms that can claim this or do claim it. Protestants have to claim that the Church is "invisible" to try and maintain legitimacy as "the Church"--but this is biblically untenable, for the Church of the Holy Scriptures is not invisible but consists of a clear apostolic succession of ordained bishops that hold authority by virtue of their apostolic office (a calling that individuals may or may not live up to, just like the President of the U.S.A.). Quite simply, God created a visible Church and who can deny it from scripture. Protestantism, on the other hand, is 20,000 or more denoms that teach a myriad of different things, do not recognize each other's authority or doctrines, do not work together, compete against each other, etc.etc. It seems impossible to me that anyone could claim protestantism as a legitimate form of the one true Church of scripture (or history).

As far as presidents are concerned no one has claimed that they are infallible. According to the catechism the Roman church claims that both the magisterium and the pope are infallible. Both of which sanctioned and instituted the inquisitions for 686 years. The fact that the Roman church has apologized for the actions of these men indicates that they were not infallible. As for the Orthodox Church they agree that the bishop of Rome was a position of honor but not supreme authority over the church and certainly not over the ecumenical council which was the primary reason for the East West Schism in 1054AD. One could say that the Roman church were the first Protestants and by the way I’m not a Protestant. I will say that as far as doctrine goes the Roman church is much closer to the apostolic teachings than most Protestant Churches.

 

[Concord1968]

As far as presidents are concerned no one has claimed that they are infallible. According to the catechism the Roman church claims that both the magisterium and the pope are infallible. Both of which sanctioned and instituted the inquisitions for 686 years. The fact that the Roman church has apologized for the actions of these men indicates that they were not infallible. As for the Orthodox Church they agree that the bishop of Rome was a position of honor but not supreme authority over the church and certainly not over the ecumenical council which was the primary reason for the East West Schism in 1054AD. One could say that the Roman church were the first Protestants and by the way I’m not a Protestant. I will say that as far as doctrine goes the Roman church is much closer to the apostolic teachings than most Protestant Churches.

I'm not Catholic, and very much do NOT believe the Pope and the Magisterium to be infallible, but it seems like you're confusing infallibility with impeccability. They aren't the same.

 

[Albion]

Ok I agree that Jesus does say that He would build His church upon Peter but let’s face it apostolic succession failed. Between 1184AD-1870AD 99 Roman popes sanctioned the inquisitions and of which the Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these men during that time. So for 686 years apostolic succession failed 99 times. These men were not infallible and being chosen as the pope of the Roman Church does not guarantee that person is being guided by the Holy Spirit and representing Christ.

How can you say that Apostolic Succession has 'failed' when only one denomination out of all those that have Apostolic Succession has been evaluated by you?

And that is not to mention James Murphy's very valid point that Apostolic Succession does not imply infallibility or anything like it.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Would you find comfort in apostolic succession failing? Does that somehow strengthen your love of Christ. Of course not. I would propose that you look at this as defined within the Catholic Church and not as stated within Protestant apologetics to incite hatred of the Catholic Church.

Firstly, apostolic succession does not guarantee an impeccable successor. It merely follows the format that the apostles started by laying on of hands and choosing leaders within the community. Those leaders choose other leaders to succeed them. Are these men perfect? Of course not. They make mistakes and Pope John Paul apologized for the mistakes of the Inquisitions after a laborious amount of research was done to actually derive some degrees of truth about the Church's part in them.

Secondly, infallibility does not include impeccability. If you want to talk about infallibility with a Catholic please use the definition that we use, not some mischaracterization. It does not offend me if you do; but it is counterproductive to fruitful discussion if we have different definitions.

• Papal infallibility. In Roman Catholic theology , Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.

The Roman church as a whole instituted and enforced the inquisitions which falls into the category of moral teachings. People try to scapegoat the popes during this period as being the only cause but the actions were carried out by the church as a whole. Please understand it is not my intention to discredit the Roman Church today but merely to point out that apostolic succession does not ensure that a person or church is incapable of mistakes. By the way I’m not a Protestant. I’m a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Orthodox teachings.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm not Catholic, and very much do NOT believe the Pope and the Magisterium to be infallible, but it seems like you're confusing infallibility with impeccability. They aren't the same.

Not according to the Roman Catholic definition of infallibility.

• Papal infallibility. In Roman Catholic theology , Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.

 

[tz620q]

• Papal infallibility. In Roman Catholic theology , Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.

The Roman church as a whole instituted and enforced the inquisitions which falls into the category of moral teachings. People try to scapegoat the popes during this period as being the only cause but the actions were carried out by the church as a whole. Please understand it is not my intention to discredit the Roman Church today but merely to point out that apostolic succession does not ensure that a person or church is incapable of mistakes. By the way I’m not a Protestant. I’m a nondenominational who has a tendency to lean towards the Orthodox teachings.

Lumping all Inquisitions together make for a topic that is over-generalized and hard to discuss. It also tends to point to an argument based on a lack of detail. It is an easy argument to make and hard to counter because it is so amorphous; but wilts under inquiry into more detail. Why don't you pick one Inquisition, since this seems to be your main offending point, and we can discuss it further.

 

[Concord1968]

Not according to the Roman Catholic definition of infallibility.

• Papal infallibility. In Roman Catholic theology , Papal infallibility is the dogma that the Pope is preserved from error when he solemnly promulgates, or declares, to the Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals.

And? What "dogmatic teaching" was being "declared" via the Inquisitions?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Lumping all Inquisitions together make for a topic that is over-generalized and hard to discuss. It also tends to point to an argument based on a lack of detail. It is an easy argument to make and hard to counter because it is so amorphous; but wilts under inquiry into more detail. Why don't you pick one Inquisition, since this seems to be your main offending point, and we can discuss it further.

The location of the inquisition is irrelevant. It’s the practice that was the problem not the location. For what it’s worth I do also defend the Roman church on many topics.

 

[BNR32FAN]

And? What "dogmatic teaching" was being "declared" via the Inquisitions?

Well, that the church has the authority to arrest, imprison, torture, and in extremely rare cases execute nonbelievers and backsliders. I think that falls into the category of errors in moral teaching.

 

[Mountainmike]

One reason I left the anglican church was its propensity to change meaning of biblical verses it did not like for no better reason than it did not like where some of them pointed - the catholic church.

The facts are uncontestable.
1/ Jesus often used references back to the old testament to make himself understood
2/ The ONLY reference to keys of the kingdom in the old testament is that which I said - the office of steward: in charge whilst the king is away.
3/ That is how the jews would have interpreted it as. Not least because "keys of a city" were indeed a symbol of an office throughout that era.. Which is presumably why Jesus said it.
4/ So there is no other meaning possible than the one we state, if using the bible as source for meaning.
5/ You do not accept meanings outside the bible have any stature compared to those in, so you of all people cannot contest this!
6/ The rest jesus said - is all consistent with Peter the rock, given keys of the kingdom, power to bind and loose, and chief pastor over the church (bind and loose)

I know you have to believe something (anything else will do) it is in your articles to disregard the pope, because King Henry liked getting his leg over too much.
I still cannot find a prophecy of a british King being given infallibility on "an alternative" interpretation of adultery with the power to bind and loose. Perhaps you would like to point me to the verse? Till then, the pope has far more justification than the monarchs!

But you have not a leg to stand on in justification.
So what were the keys you think were given to Peter, and where is your ALTERNATIVE meaning derived. Use Old testament verses only please , using the word "keys"

There's no reason to think he DID mislead. The interpretation of the Matthew verse made by the church that has based its claims to supremacy upon it is among the least plausible interpretations, and it is one that the Apostolic church certainly did not hold.


I've already explained why it doesn't.

 

[Concord1968]

Well, that the church has the authority to arrest, imprison, torture, and in extremely rare cases execute nonbelievers and backsliders. I think that falls into the category of errors in moral teaching.

But, again, that has nothing to do with dogmatic teaching.

 

[Albion]

One reason I left the anglican church was its propensity to change meaning of biblical verses it did not like for no better reason than it did not like where some of them pointed - the catholic church.

The facts are uncontestable.

What church body are you referring to?

I know you have to believe something (anything else will do) it is in your articles to disregard the pope, because King Henry liked getting his leg over too much.

Is this where I get to whine about 'Anglican bashing?' LOL

I still cannot find a prophecy of a british King being given infallibility on "an alternative" interpretation of adultery with the power to bind and loose. Perhaps you would like to point me to the verse?

I'm thinking that it probably was a good idea to leave your Anglican church, given how little you seem to know of its faith or history.

 

[BNR32FAN]

But, again, that has nothing to do with dogmatic teaching.

But, again, that has nothing to do with dogmatic teaching.

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it.

Dogma : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

The inquisitions were officially sanctioned by the pope and by doing so they were implying that they had the authority to do so and it was morally acceptable.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

I would agree thst Peter being the Rock in this context makes sense.

I would argue that Christ's later instructions to Peter in John 21:15-17 point to a unique teaching and shepherding role that Peter was given by Christ, and thus, to his successors.

He asked this of Peter THREE times because He wanted to make a point to Peter regarding his denial of Him THREE times...

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

Ok I agree that Jesus does say that He would build His church upon Peter but let’s face it apostolic succession failed. Between 1184AD-1870AD 99 Roman popes sanctioned the inquisitions and of which the Roman church has officially apologized for the actions of these men during that time. So for 686 years apostolic succession failed 99 times. These men were not infallible and being chosen as the pope of the Roman Church does not guarantee that person is being guided by the Holy Spirit and representing Christ.

It did not fail in the East with the Orthodox

 

[Concord1968]

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it.

Dogma : a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church

The inquisitions were officially sanctioned by the pope and by doing so they were implying that they had the authority to do so and it was morally acceptable.

That doesn't make it doctrine or dogma, though. Trying to stretch the definition to cover just about anything renders the word meaningless.

 

[Albion]

I would agree thst Peter being the Rock in this context makes sense.

I would argue that Christ's later instructions to Peter in John 21:15-17 point to a unique teaching and shepherding role that Peter was given by Christ, and thus, to his successors.

Of course, there is no "and thus to his successors" implied anywhere.

But it is equally clear that this claim is essential to any theory of the bishop of Rome being the sole ruler of the universal church.

As for the actual Scripture, Peter thrice denied Christ. Jesus thrice asked Peter if he loved him. So Christ, upon Peter's profession, gives him the commission to look after his flock--again in triple fashion.

We all know, I assume, that the triple imagery is all over the place in Christianity and is a way of emphasizing a point or principle. To claim that feed my lambs, feed my lambs, feed my sheep is some awkward way of making Peter a pope--let alone any successors--is just fanciful.

Anyway, if the early church had held this opinion, it would have been known then and not waited until the 4th century to be an issue.