Why do catholics say that Peter was the rock on which the church was built? Matthew 16:18 says : " I now say to you: You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church....." In Ephesians 2:20 it says: "Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone:..." Even Augustine(the catholics call him St. Augustine), recognized that,although He had at an earlier time said that the rock referred to Peter, he later recognized that in the scriptures it says, "Thou art Peter" and not"Thou art the rock was said to Him. But the rock was Christ, in confessing as whom also the whole church confesses, Simon was called Peter." (The Fathers of The Church- Saint Augustine, the Retractations)[Washington, D.C.; 1968], translated by Mary I.Bogan, Book I, p. 90. WHAT DO YOU THINK?
2007-04-24
10:50:54
·
21 answers
·
asked by
giggles
2
in
Society & Culture
➔ Religion & Spirituality
none of you seem to know how to answer my question. as for "The Rock" (wrestler) it's getting old guys. he sux. AND ALSO IF YOU HAVE TIME TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS, THAT ONLY MEANS YOU HAVE TIME TO ANSWER THEM AS WELL.
2007-04-24
11:03:50 ·
update #1
I think you are right. When He said on this rock I will build my church He was referring to himself. He is the cornerstone (the beginning) and the capstone (the end). The church is His bride. Good work!!
2007-04-24 11:16:11
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter, or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. It is our view Jesus was declaring that Peter would be the “rock” on which He would build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build His church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.
Many argue vehemently against the concept that Jesus was declaring Peter to be the rock. While some of these alternate interpretations are indeed plausible, they are motivated, at least in part, by a faulty assumption. The faulty assumption is that if Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18, this makes the Roman Catholic Church the one true church. Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church uses this very argument. On the contrary, Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Scripture nowhere records Peter being in Rome. Scripture nowhere describes Peter as being supreme over the other apostles. The New Testament does not describe Peter as being “all authoritative leader” of the early Christian church. Peter was not the first pope, and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. The origin of the Catholic Church is not in the teachings of Peter, or any other apostle. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, it would be in full agreement with what Peter taught (Acts chapter 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).
Recommended Resource: Reasoning from the Scriptures with Catholics by Ron Rhodes.
2007-04-24 18:53:11
·
answer #2
·
answered by Freedom 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
It is a convenient scripture for the Catholic Church to use and say that Peter was the first Pope. Most non-catholic theologians believe that Jesus was saying that Peter was the type of person on which the church would be dependent. In other words, a person like Peter would be the membership foundation on which to build the kind of church Christ wanted.
Added-If anyone wants to take the scripture literally, read on in Matthew 17:23, I have noticed that none of you have mentioned that scripture, why not? If Christ was literal in v.18 why is He not literal in v.23? ...where He calls Peter..Satan.
2007-04-24 17:58:51
·
answer #3
·
answered by loufedalis 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Relax, giggles! Christ had asked the disciples about who men said He was. Some said a prophet, others Elijah. Jesus asked them, "Who do you say that I am?" Peter blurted out, "You are the Christ, the Son of God." The "rock" (little r), refers to the principle that the church is built on, being that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God. The Rock (big r), is Christ Himself. Jesus said to Peter, "You are Cephas" being translated "a stone." That is where the confusion comes in.
2007-04-24 18:11:57
·
answer #4
·
answered by singwritelaugh 4
·
2⤊
0⤋
Christ was drawing a relationship with His statement, "upon this rock" as opposed to that rock which was the rock hewn out of the mountain in moses day which also represented Christ.
peter had a revelation that was given to him by God of who Christ is. Peter recognized that God had a Son, The Lord Jesus Christ.
upon this same revelation of Jesus Christ that peter had, would be the foundation of the church.
that is what the book of revelations is, it is the revelation of Jesus Christ on which the church is built. It is the only book in the bible written by the Lord Jesus Himself with John as His scribe.
It is like the rock hewn out of the mountain. it is the "little" book hewn out of the "big" book. it is a culmination of the entire bible all in this "little" book called revelations, our lives rest upon our understanding of these words/symbols. This is what makes us overcomers.
while others wrastle with the scriptures to their own destruction, our understanding of His words is what makes us overcomers.
Christ is the rock upon which the church is built.
paul was chief steward of the church after Christ died not peter. peter had to follow paul, not the other way around. peter was subject to the authority of paul, paul was not subject to peter
2007-04-24 18:09:26
·
answer #5
·
answered by God help us 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The basis is a bit more than you mention. Peter was given that name by Jesus. His name was originally Simon. Peter (the name) means rock.
Still, who cares? Jesus had no idea that his followers would create the monstrosity that is the christian church. Jesus visited the temple twice in his life (and one of those times to cause trouble) and told his followers to pray in a closet. There is no sense in the bible that the word "church" would ever be used to describe a christian building. The word in Greek actually means a convocation or gathering.
2007-04-24 17:58:45
·
answer #6
·
answered by Dave P 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
If St. Augustine were here, I'm sure he would change his opinion again if he were able to discuss it with theologians of today.
This has been gone over for hundreds of years. You will now find that many protestant theologians agree that Jesus was talking about Peter being the "rock" on which he would build his church.
The meaning is in the translation of the original words.
Here is a link to a paper written by a very educated theologian Scott Hahn. He was a Presbyterian minister whose mission was to save Catholics from hell. In his endeavor to prove Catholicism wrong...he became Catholic. He's a very interesting man...but he addresses your very question with great insight and knowledge. Check it out.
http://www.catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
2007-04-24 18:04:34
·
answer #7
·
answered by Misty 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.
2007-04-24 18:16:41
·
answer #8
·
answered by ana 2
·
0⤊
1⤋
Jesus said "You are the Rock, and upon this rock will I build my Church." I can see how that might lead Catholics to say that. Why else would Jesus have gone out of his way to say "You are called the Rock..."
The name "Peter" (Petros) is the masculine form of "rock" (petra).
And no, I am not Roman Catholic, and I do not believe in Papal Supremacy. But the text says what it says.
2007-04-24 17:59:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by NONAME 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Deuteronomy 32:4 , 32:15 & 32:18 Read those passage and see who really is the Rock.
2007-04-24 18:03:18
·
answer #10
·
answered by Rallie Florencio C 7
·
0⤊
0⤋