Peter given the keys?? - Scripture - Questions about Catholicism

Not logged in - Login | Register for Posting Access

CHNI Forums > Questions about Catholicism > Scripture > Peter given the keys??

Peter given the keys??

Moderated by: Rob, Jim Anderson, Dave Armstrong

New Topic

Author

Post

3John4
Member

Joined:	Tue Feb 13th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	80
First Name:	Dede
Gender:	Female
Faith History:	Catholic, Protestant, Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Dec 20th, 2007 11:51 pm

Quote

I am doing Jeff Cavins' Great Adventure Bible Study this year. My husband, a staunch Protestant, is going with me, but buying into virtually nothing that is being taught about the Church. Last week the lesson got into the link between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16--and Jesus passing the keys onto Peter. My husband got up and walked out at that point. I don't confront him anymore because, in the past, we have ended up yelling, I ultimately break down in tears, and then find myself at confession over the anger I feel.

I did however, look at the notes he was taking in class, just to get an idea what he was thinking. His major argument seemed to revolve around the question, "If authority was really passed on to an apostolic succession beginning with Peter, why doesn't Paul, or any other epistle writer ever refer to Peter's leadership as pope?

Is this, in fact, true? (Sorry, normally I'd go searching myself but my reading time is still limited after retina surgery.) Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Dede

Quote

Robert
Member

Joined:	Mon Nov 12th, 2007
Location:	Germany
Posts:	89
First Name:	Robert
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	The whole spectrum from black to white, now 100% Catholic!
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 04:43 am

Quote

Sometimes when people have a total mind set on their beliefs, it becomes very difficult for them to accept anything that may upset their apple cart.

First off, we don’t need Paul confirming the supremacy of Peter. If anything, Peter and the other Apostles were required to confirm Pauls ministry (cf. Acts 15). In fact the book of Acts shows through and through that Peter was the head of the Church.

____________________
Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15)

Quote

BodRod
Member

Joined:	Mon Oct 2nd, 2006
Location:	Apple Valley, California USA
Posts:	770
First Name:	Cliff
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Raised an SDA, then Generic Christian, finally at home with ...
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Dec 21st, 2007 10:01 am

Quote

May I ask; does your husband have problems with making or accepting changes in general? My wife and I went over the Nicene Creed one time and she did not disagree with a single concept of the Creed. However, she strongly objected to my joining the RCC. In later discussions, involving less stressful topics, she has made the statement that she does not like change, period. Looking back over our 52+ years of marriage, I had never recognized that, but she is right. She has never liked changed, even when the change would be to her advantage. While such a recognition, on my part, has not shown me how to draw her closer to the Church, it has given me a greater understanding of our situation and a more positive acceptance of our situation.

____________________
Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro.

Quote

Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist

Joined:	Fri Nov 2nd, 2007
Location:	Melvindale, Michigan USA
Posts:	1414
First Name:	Dave
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Mon Dec 24th, 2007 05:23 pm

Quote

Hi Dede,

These papers might be helpful:

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

Reply to a Critique of my 50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy

Second Refutation of the Reductio ad Absurdum Argument for a "Pauline Papacy"

Dialogue: Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?

____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/

Quote

Candlemass
Member

Joined:	Tue May 1st, 2007
Location:	Hudson, Ohio USA
Posts:	462
First Name:	Mark
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life!
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Jan 24th, 2008 03:15 am

Quote

If apostolic succession has occured in the Catholic Church, are they're still "signs of an apostle", or are these more along the lines of apostles of the Church rather then apostles of Christ?

____________________
"For we have spent enough of our past lifetime in doing the will of the Gentiles—when we walked in lewdness, lusts, drunkenness, revelries, drinking parties, and abominable idolatries."--1st Peter 4:3 NKJV

Quote

Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist

Joined:	Fri Nov 2nd, 2007
Location:	Melvindale, Michigan USA
Posts:	1414
First Name:	Dave
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Jan 24th, 2008 10:10 pm

Quote

Apostolic signs (i.e., miracles) wer more prevalent when the Church first began. Apostolic succession today means simply "the office of the bishop" and the ordination flowing from them to the priests. This goes all the way back, historically. I've written about the NT evidence for apostolic succession.

Quote

Candlemass
Member

Joined:	Tue May 1st, 2007
Location:	Hudson, Ohio USA
Posts:	462
First Name:	Mark
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life!
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Jan 24th, 2008 10:40 pm

Quote

Ok, Ill scope it out. :cool:

Quote

swordswoman
Member

Joined:	Tue Feb 19th, 2008
Location:	Williamsburg, Virginia USA
Posts:	14
First Name:	AnnieO
Gender:	Female
Faith History:	Lutheran, Mormon (!), Catholic, Buddhist (!), Lutheran
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 12:11 am

Quote

Hello,

I'm a new member who is presently very conservative Lutheran. Somehow I keep coming to Catholic websites! I have scanned your papers about St. Peter, Dave, and could not find the answer to my question. Our pastor tells us that the two Greek words of "rock" are different. One means "pebble" in Jesus' referring to Peter, and the other means "rock" in referring to the rock that the Church is built on. Can you help? Thanks,

AnnieO

____________________
AnnieO

Quote

JasPax
Member

Joined:	Wed Nov 22nd, 2006
Location:	North Carolina USA
Posts:	214
First Name:	James
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Episcopal to Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 01:34 am

Quote

swordswoman wrote: Hello,

I'm a new member who is presently very conservative Lutheran. Somehow I keep coming to Catholic websites! I have scanned your papers about St. Peter, Dave, and could not find the answer to my question. Our pastor tells us that the two Greek words of "rock" are different. One means "pebble" in Jesus' referring to Peter, and the other means "rock" in referring to the rock that the Church is built on. Can you help? Thanks,

AnnieO

Hi Annie: That is the common Protestant claim. They must make this claim, otherwise they would have to admit that the successors of Peter are the heads of the Church. What your pastor didn't tell you is that Jesus and his companions spoke Aramaic. In that language there is no differentiation between masculine and feminine nouns as there are in the Greek. In the Greek there are two words for "rock"; Petra (fem.- rock) and Petros (Masc.-small rock). Since a man's name cannot have a feminine ending the Greek text became Petros. "Thou art Petros..." But when Jesus spoke this sentence (in his Aramaic) he said, "You are Rock and upon this Rock I will build my Church."

God's Blessings,

____________________
James
"Abide in me, and I in you..." John 15:4
"He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." John 6:56
RSV-2CE

Quote

DrDave
Member

Joined:	Mon Nov 6th, 2006
Location:	Mildura, Australia
Posts:	217
First Name:	Dave
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic
Status:	Online

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 01:43 am

Quote

Hi Annie, I'm sure the other Dave will give you several chapters in answer to your question

, but I thought I'd jump in with my two cents worth.

But first I'd like you to imagine a scenario. Imagine you've just had a child after years of trying, and a very difficult pregnancy. As a prayer of thanks to our creator, you choose to name your child Angel. (Or perhaps because you're a Buffy fan

). You're husband who is in this scenario from a very Italian family says no it must be an Italian name. You have to choose between Angelo and Angela. Which do you choose and why? I would suggest that you would choose Angelo for a boy or Angela for a girl (or you might choose to give him a piece of you mind :cool:

) In many Mediterranean languages most words have either a masculine or a feminine gender. Thus in these languages it would be insulting to call that little boy Angela, and vice versa.

The Greek text does indeed say that "you are Petros(masculine), and on this Petra(feminine) I will build my church". Petros can be translated as small stone, and Petra can be translated as large rock. But I urge you to consider that this might be a stylistic variation to avoid calling Simon/Cephas/Kepha/Petros/Peter/Rocky a "Girly Rock" (which must be pronounced with a Schwarzenegger accent)

Further I would reccomend you to This tract at Catholic Answer's website http://www.catholic.com

Regards Doc

Quote

CajunRick
Network Helper

Joined:	Fri Sep 29th, 2006
Location:	Houma, Louisiana USA
Posts:	5079
First Name:	Rick (& Kermie)
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 02:07 am

Quote

swordswoman wrote: Hello,

I'm a new member who is presently very conservative Lutheran. Somehow I keep coming to Catholic websites! I have scanned your papers about St. Peter, Dave, and could not find the answer to my question. Our pastor tells us that the two Greek words of "rock" are different. One means "pebble" in Jesus' referring to Peter, and the other means "rock" in referring to the rock that the Church is built on. Can you help? Thanks,

AnnieO
Annie, the common language of Jesus and the apostles was Aramaic, and the word for "rock" is kepha, which Paul tells us "is rendered Cephas". Like English, Aramaic and other Middle Eastern languages do not use gendered words. Greek, Latin, and the romance languages do. That's why, in Latin, "alumnus" refers only to a man, while "alumna" is a woman graduate. The words are equivalent except for the gender of the word. In English, the word "graduate" applies equally to both men and women.

So the whole "Petros/petra" argument is fradulent. The Greek word for "rock" is petra. Petros is a masculine version of the same thing. The word for "pebble" is lithos.

Here's a tract from Catholic Answers that explains it in more detail.

____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine

Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane

Quote

swordswoman
Member

Joined:	Tue Feb 19th, 2008
Location:	Williamsburg, Virginia USA
Posts:	14
First Name:	AnnieO
Gender:	Female
Faith History:	Lutheran, Mormon (!), Catholic, Buddhist (!), Lutheran
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 02:14 pm

Quote

Hey y'all,

Oh, that's right, I'm familiar with gendered nouns in different languages, so your explanations do make sense. Wonderful article about fending off the Seventh-Day Adventist! And you're right, I should have asked our pastor about Jesus and the Apostles speaking Aramaic which does not have gendered nouns. So I guess my question now that you've showed me more references is a little simplistic eh? But thanks for helping me out...Are you wondering why I'm not back in the Catholic Church? Well, my husband took a big step in converting to Lutheran from Baptist, which maybe is better than nothing!

Ya think?

____________________
AnnieO

Quote

3John4
Member

Joined:	Tue Feb 13th, 2007
Location:	USA
Posts:	80
First Name:	Dede
Gender:	Female
Faith History:	Catholic, Protestant, Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 04:25 pm

Quote

Rick,

Thanks for that link. That was a great piece. Even though I've read bits and pieces of that explanation in different places before, Karl's article really helped bring it all together.

What a terrific resource the CHN forum is. I have gained so much from hangin' around here!

Dede

Quote

CajunRick
Network Helper

Joined:	Fri Sep 29th, 2006
Location:	Houma, Louisiana USA
Posts:	5079
First Name:	Rick (& Kermie)
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 05:31 pm

Quote

swordswoman wrote: Are you wondering why I'm not back in the Catholic Church?
We look forward to your faith story, Annie, but we do not pressure here. We're here to inform you about the Catholic faith and to assist you on your journey, wherever it might lead. That's the Catholic way!

____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine

Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane

Quote

Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist

Joined:	Fri Nov 2nd, 2007
Location:	Melvindale, Michigan USA
Posts:	1414
First Name:	Dave
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Wed Feb 20th, 2008 06:13 pm

Quote

Hi AnnieO,

Welcome to our forum. I didn't refer above to my paper compiling opinions on Peter as the Rock:

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)

Here are some examples from it, from four very reputable Protestant scholarly sources:

----------------------

Jesus now sums up Peter's significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter's character (he did not prove to be 'rock-like' in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus' church. The feminine word for 'rock', 'petra', is necessarily changed to the masculine 'petros' (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form 'kepha' would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the 'rock' here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus' new community . . . which will last forever.

(R.T. France [Anglican]; in Morris, Leon, General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

On the basis of the distinction between 'petros' . . . and 'petra' . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere 'stone,' it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the 'rock' . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . .

The Greek makes the distinction between 'petros' and 'petra' simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine 'petra' could not very well serve as a masculine name . . .

Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been 'lithos' ('stone' of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . .

In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .

(D.A. Carson [Baptist]; in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. editor, Expositor's Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke {Matthew: D.A. Carson}, 368)

Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter's faith or Peter's confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation [i.e., biased by denominational views] any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter's authority to 'bind' or 'release' will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven's will.

(William F. Albright [Methodist] and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198)

Last edited on Wed Feb 20th, 2008 06:17 pm by Dave Armstrong

Quote

Roaming Catholic
Member

Joined:	Fri Feb 1st, 2008
Location:	St. Catharines, Ontario Canada
Posts:	9
First Name:	Tim
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Raised RC, Pentecostal, Baptist, Mennonite, Anglican, Evangelical-Missionary
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Feb 21st, 2008 02:19 am

Quote

As an evangelical, Matthew 16.18 was actually the passage that led me to start looking into the Catholic Church seriously. In a sermon last year, the pastor of the church which I've attended the last 12 years, was giving the typical evangelical explanation of 'little rock, big rock' which somehow didn't hold water this time. I remembered studying at seminary how John 3 has a play on words going on with the word pneuma - which can mean both 'spirit' or 'wind.' But this made me wonder about with the word 'rock' in the Matthew passage. Jesus was evidently doing a play on words with the word rock, and the best evangelical explanations I've read or heard never take this into account nor explain it in any satisfying way. That made me realize that the Catholic explanation of this passage makes a lot more sense than any other protestant excuses I've encountered which try to explain it away.

Tim

Quote

Candlemass
Member

Joined:	Tue May 1st, 2007
Location:	Hudson, Ohio USA
Posts:	462
First Name:	Mark
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life!
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Feb 21st, 2008 02:24 pm

Quote

What about passages that refer to Christ as the rock, or foundation?, ie "the stone the builders rejected", "the stumbling block to the Jews", "the chief Cornerstone",
"for no one can lay a foundation other than the one that is there, namely, Jesus Christ. "

Quote

Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist

Joined:	Fri Nov 2nd, 2007
Location:	Melvindale, Michigan USA
Posts:	1414
First Name:	Dave
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Evangelical "Jesus Freak" (Arminian) / "Lewisian Schaefferite" / Catholic
Status:	Offline

Posted: Thu Feb 21st, 2008 09:45 pm

Quote

Hi Candle,

That stuff is true too. Scripture often expresses something that is true of different classes of people. So Jesus is the rock in one sense, Peter is in another. Jesus is the creator; we are the procreators in childbirth, etc.

The notion of "the Church" is specifically built upon human beings (i.e., creatures). The Church was built on Peter as the first pope. When Paul talks about the offices of the Church, that is all human beings, not God. The whole thrust of Matthew 16 is "Peter-oriented"; it had to do with him, not Jesus, or merely Peter's faith. The Protestant commentators I cited above bear this out, and none of them are slouches, believe me. They're some of the most highly respected exegetes today.

Quote

CajunRick
Network Helper

Joined:	Fri Sep 29th, 2006
Location:	Houma, Louisiana USA
Posts:	5079
First Name:	Rick (& Kermie)
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 02:06 am

Quote

Candlemass wrote: What about passages that refer to Christ as the rock, or foundation?
Jesus is the rock. He left Peter as the rock. Today we have Benedict as the rock.

The foundation of our faith on earth is the King and in his (physical) absense, the Vicar of Christ, the Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God, the Bishop of Rome.

On the day of Christ's return, he will resume his rightful place as the rock on which our Church is built and sustained. Until that time, we follow his Vicar on earth, who will gladly return the keys of the kingdom to the King.

____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine

Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane

Quote

Candlemass
Member

Joined:	Tue May 1st, 2007
Location:	Hudson, Ohio USA
Posts:	462
First Name:	Mark
Gender:	Male
Faith History:	Catholic, AOG, Baptist, non - denominational, Anglican, CC for life!
Status:	Offline

Posted: Fri Feb 22nd, 2008 03:52 am

Quote

Very well, rock on brother! :dude:

Quote

Current time is 05:56 am

CHNI Forums > Questions about Catholicism > Scripture > Peter given the keys??