Excellent commentary, Jimmy. I also find it interesting when some Protestant Christians (who believe in the Bible Alone) will actually ‘add’ to the scripture by claiming that “Jesus is pointing to himself” when He says “on this rock”, when it clearly says no such thing. God Bless you.

Thank you for delving into the scriptures so thoroughly. Why did Christ call Peter a rock or stone when he could have simply said “I will build my church through (or on) you.”? This is a somewhat poetical statement since in truth men are not literally rocks. Christ actually made a poetical allusion to a particular type of rock that He will build his church on. We find this type of rock in Rev. 21 in describing the New Jerusalem.

The stone is called jasper, which composes the great wall - each separate stone being one of the elect. Of the 12 different stones associated with the 12 apostles, the stone for Peter is jasper. This is why Peter is called the rock on which the church is built. Of course, there are 11 other apostles which serve as additional entrances to the Throne of God, but everyone must ultimately conform to jasper to succeed.

Why is this important? How will it enrich my faith?

Sally, did you view the video? Are you Catholic? If not, this Scripture passage shows that Jesus gave Peter authority over His Church on earth. The Apostles understood that this authority would not die out with them, and had to be handed down, just like they knew that they had to replace Judas with another. If the Pope is the Successor of Peter, then he is the Authority of the Church on earth, he is the Vicar of Christ. The Pope and the Magesterium protect and proclaim the Truth of God, so the faithful do not have to be confused about what to believe. So we don’t need to have 30K denominations, like Protestants, with different interpretations of Scripture and different teachings on faith and morals.

Many non-Catholic Christians have come to understand and believe this, as well as other truths, and have come home to the Catholic Church, knowing that this is the Church founded by Jesus upon the Rock of Peter.
If you are Catholic, then Mr. Akin’s post just gives us another way to explain when we are confronted by Protestants about the Pope.

Thank you for this explanation!  This very thing was the source of many a heated argument in our home between my very Catholic dad, and my sister, who left the Church for the non-denominational church.  I’m going to try to send it to my sister.  I pray she’ll be able to receive my email.  She lives in Salem, OR.  You’re not in Salem by any chance are you?!
God bless and keep you,
Rita

Some of the arguments the Oriental and Orthodox Churches used to deny the validity of Peter Apostolic Mission are the same as those Christians from the Reformation use. But they have much more than you can believe there are. When you finish reading those arguments you start wondering if the Catholic Church doctrinal argument is valid. But you do not have to be a theologian to convince yourself it is valid. The validity of the argument stands.  It is the unity of the Church the undeniable prove. You do not have any unity, in doctrine and morals, within the Old Catholics, Orthodox or Oriental churches, and impossible within the reformation churches (each group or diocese is a “church” in itself.) There is no point on going and going over the validity of the Petrine Magisterium when one cannot deny the unity is only found in the Roman Catholic Church, the only universal church in matters of faith, morals and government.

You are simply fantastic, Jimmy. Many thanks for sharing such deep knowledge for free.

Why, oh why do men try to make the faith so complicated?  Apologies Jimmy, but, whilst your basic premise is of course right, you are also responsible for over-complicating and, therefore, confusing many people. 
It is so very simple and plain for all to see, if only people would read what Jesus has to say in the simplicity with which he gave us his teachings.  St John of Damascus said, “God created man to be straightforward, but he has entangled himself with an infinity of questions.”  If we read Jesus’s words in the light of Mark 10:15, “Truly, I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child shall not enter it.”  Men talk of the ‘authority’ given to Peter and the church, whilst Christ talks of servant-hood and service, not the wielding of power and authority.  “If any of you shall be first, you must become the servant of all.”  Quite clearly in the light of this, Jesus was undoubtedly using the very basic meaning of the word, ‘Petros’ – small stone – or even tiny pebble!  Referring, I am sure, to the tiny kernel of Peter’s faith, but out of which he would make something great!  As it happens, Peter was later to be made even ‘smaller’  by suffering the humiliation of his own denial of Christ.  But yet - small Acorns grow into huge oaks; faith as small as a mustard seed can achieve the unbelievable; suffer the ‘little’ children to come unto me.  Jesus always uses the diminutive to achieve His kingdom.  Recall those beautiful words of Fulton Sheen in his chapter, ‘Words From The Cross’ in his amazingly illuminating book, ‘The Life of Christ’ – “One would have thought that a saint would have been the first soul to be purchased across the counter of Calvary by the red coins of Redemption – but in the Divine plan, it was a thief who was to escort the King of kings into paradise.”  Once again – the lowest of the low and the smallest amongst us.  Without doubt, Jesus Christ intended that ‘tiny pebble’, Peter, to be the foundation upon which the greatest work of the Holy Spirit, His universal and world-wide church, was to be built.  Stop thinking big – think small.  And if the church uses its time well to ‘serve’ and not to be served, Peter will even yet become ‘PETRA’. 
God Bless

Where is the proof of a rock? All the other Christian faiths have capitulated on contraception.

The Old Testament prefigured the New Testament. In the desert the people wanted water. Moses struck the Rock, life giving water gushed forth. Christ said he was the living water. He made Peter the Rock of the New Testament. From the Pope, the Vicar of Christ, the life giving water of truth through the Holy Ghost gushes forth for us from Peter the Rock. The greatest folly of man is to defy the Rock that gives us the absolute truth, or if you wish, the life giving water.

I know where Sally and Ray are coming from.  The problem with going to great lengths to use the Bible to prove so many things, is it waters down *key issues* for us, when we need them.  For instance, I know people that use the Bible to say same sex marriage is fine, when the Bible CLEARLY indicates that homosexual behavior is NOT acceptable to God.

For instance, while the virgin birth of Jesus is critical for Christians to believe, the perpetual virginity of Mary is NOT critical in the long term, looking at God’s plan for our salvation and for our eternal life.  Think about it: after Jesus was born, does Mary’s perpetual virginity really matter? No.

While we DO need church leadership, it seems like all our dioceses have bishops that are their “own popes” anyway, with some dioceses liberal and others, conservative.  Rome has no real control over any of them, in reality, except to dictate what kind of liturgy is used on Sunday at Mass.

With our country at a crossroads, and VatiLeaks, Vatican Bank, etc. coming out of Rome, I think everyone needs to focus on *The Important Matters* of our Christian faith.  Setting everything that is not essential to believe aside, including all apparition messages and the writings of the Church fathers, let’s all just preach the Gospel, in its fullness, to bring back morals in our country and in our homes.  Please?

God help us and our country, if we as Catholics keep majoring in the minors.  If the Chair of Peter is the top dog in the church: then, let him LEAD!!

The only way to be a leader is if you have followers - and all bishops need to get on the same page about God-honoring morals: being Pro-Life 100%, Pro-traditional marriage, and Pro-MEN in leadership at the church.
I for one, am tired of all the weakness.

—-Dr. Gore, Anglican Bishop of Oxford, ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, p.70 “It is difficult, i think, to feel any doubt that Our Lord is here pronouncing the person of Peter to be the rock.”

—-Protestant Professor C.H Turner, says : “We of the Church of England and Protestant scholars in general since the Reformation, have failed to give its due weight to testimony suplied by the New Testament, and in particular by the Gospel, to the unique position there ascribe to St.        Peter.”

—-Protestant Scholar Dr. Trevord Jalland, THE CHURCH AND THE PAPACY, p.55 “Petra (Kepha) literally denotes the Apostle himself as “Rock” and it is on Peter as on the rock that the foundations of the new ecclesia are to be laid.”

—-Ancient Medieval History, p.236 “Paramount among these offices is the position which was first entrusted to St. Peter. He was to be the rock upon which the Church is built.”

—-Tertullian, Pros. No.23, Scorp. “It was upon Peter, as the foundation stone, that the Church was built.”

—-DICCIONARIO GREGO-ESPANOL, MENDIZABAL p.298. the word kephas means FOUNDATION or FUNDAMENTO.

Terah, I agree with your post entirely, adding that our leaders need to be servants. Jesus gave the example to His Apostles when He washed their feet at the Last Supper. Whoever wishes to be the greatest must be the least. Some of our Bishops have forgotten that.

Anatole, thanks for the references.

Thank you, Joanp62.  I agree with your post entirely too, and concur that our church leaders must be servants.  Sadly, I think almost all of them forgot this.  Perhaps it’s all the fancy clothes they wear?  The pomp, circumstance of the liturgy?  Their priorities are misdirected?  Skewed and no one has reminded them of what you wrote above?

Most of them seem to be Masters of Ceremonies.  It’s difficult to hoist up umpteen yards of gold and purple embroidered sateen, intricately woven white lace on linen, wearing a mitred jewel encrusted headpiece, and wash someone’s feet.

Would Jesus be caught dead, in the clothing our bishops wear?  Peter?  Paul?  Any of the other apostles?  When did bishops start wearing the clothes they wear today?  Is not the cost of their dry cleaning alone, enough to feed a village in Africa, for a year?

The meaning of the title, “Monsignor” is, I believe, “My Lord”.  It’s a title from the feudal days.  Am I correct?  Lords to not wash feet.  They don’t even have to wash their own feet.  Peons do that for them.  It’s about our priorities.  What YOU write about, Joanp62, is the ultimate priority.  It is what has Eternal Value.  You are, 100% correct.  And as lay people, it is our responsibility to remind our leaders of what you wrote.  The question is: how?

As an aside, I saw a news release that at the US Bishops Meetings in November, they want to encourage priests to use their 7 minutes on Sunday at Mass to educate congregations about the faith, in their homilies.  My suggestion would be to take The Nicene Creed - what we believe as Christians, and TEACH IT, in street clothes, with bishops making the rounds as every parish, answering questions about the CREED, so that it’s drummed into our heads so much that we have our truths down pat. 

A caveat - just the Nicene Creed.  No musings of what Church Fathers taught about it.  No sharing of Mary’s latest message at an apparition site.  No opinions from the pastors/bishops that veers from the Creed.

I believe in God - (who is God?  What does it mean to me?).......

The Father Almighty - (God reveals Himself to us as Father.  God is not a mother, or a female.  This is not discrimination. Let’s stop being silly, ladies.)......................

The Creator of Heaven and Earth (no, the first 11 chapters of Genesis are NOT a myth.  It’s from there that we know of Original Sin & the existence of the devil.).................... ETC…..............

Thanks also Joanp62 and to the others for defending our faith. God will repay you.

Gloria in exelsis Deo !!!

Terah, not sure I agree with you with how the Bishops dress. It is not to honor themselves but is to honor the position of Bishop. The highest bishop, the Pope, will dress as he does when saying Mass, etc., also out of honor of the See of Peter. The Pope is also considered the Servant of the Servants of God. Regarding the costs of these garments, please, the Church is probably one of the biggest if not the biggest charitable organization in the world.

I see you are still making suggestions about what you think the Church should do. But don’t forget, we were not given the Teaching Authority to the extent that Jesus gave it to his Apostles and their successors- the bishops. They make mistakes, they are human, and some are pretty awful, but they were still chosen by God and we need to respect that at least.

Joanp62 -
What did Jesus say about the clerical men of His day that wore fancy clerical clothing out on the street?  In Jesus’ day, as it is now, their ordained leaders didn’t just dress like royalty at the altar.  They paraded that way, in public too.  Jesus had words for them.  What specifically did He say?  I ask because I am echoing Jesus’ sentiments, directly from the Bible, and not making my own suggestions.

Terah, need I remind you that the Church, rightly, does not go by the Bible Alone, but by Oral Tradition and Scripture. Which means, that what the Apostles believed, based on what they learned walking with Christ for 3 years and on what the Holy Spirit infused them with at Pentecost and what the Apostles then handed down to others, namely the Early Church Fathers, is not all in the Bible. If you read any of the Early Church Fathers, like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Polycarp, etc., you will see what the early Church was doing, and not everything is in Scripture. I think it was St. Justin Martyr, who wrote a letter to some Roman official explaining just what it is these ‘Christ followers’ were doing in their homes when they worshiped. In it, Justin describes what they do at Mass, how they read from the Scriptures, how they offer up prayers for the community of believers, how they offer their gifts of bread and wine, and how they partake of the bread and wine as Jesus did with His Apostles and how this bread and wine are changed into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. It is a description of our Mass today.

And in Jesus’ day, the Pharisees and Chief Priests did dress differently then the rest of the people. Also, have you ever looked closely at a priests vestments? Some may be of expensive material, and those are usually hand made by a parishioner or donated by someone, but the majority only look ‘fancy’. They are really not as expensive or fine as they may look.

When a priest or bishop is offering the Holy Mass, should they dress in street clothes? They are dressing up for God and it is because it is sacred. Out on the street, they dress simply, usually in black pants and jacket. But they wear their collar which is a good thing, because it distinguishes them from other people. And, it tells others that they are a priest which is helpful in case someone should be in need of one. I find that priests who dress as anyone else when out and about seem to be saying that they are only a priest when in church and saying Mass. I’ve met priests like that, who seem to think that they can ‘leave their priesthood at the door’ when they go out, when in fact they are a priest at all times.  I’m sure someone more knowledgeable on the subject can add to this.

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the Apostles is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as Petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra? Note that Christ did not speak to the deciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech(note that in John l:42 he was told “You will be called Cephas”).
What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are kepha, and upon this kepha i will build my church”. When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ life. In Aramaic the word kepha. has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the 2nd appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name, so he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros. Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In 1st century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the 1st century this distinction was gone, as a Protestant Bible scholars admit(see : EXPOSITOR’S BIBLE COMMENTARY). Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are rock, and upon this rock i will build my Church”. Consider another point : If the rock really did refer to Christ’s as some claim, based on 1Cor.10:4, “and the rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock, why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is closer parrallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that the readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock….rock”. If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1st Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it. The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what is really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the claim of the papacy.  God bless to everyone. Gloria in exelsis Deo !!!

The language of the statement “You are a rock” has confused many for centuries. Obviously, Peter is literally a human being, not a rock, but he did have a particular spiritual quality that resembled a rock, something not present in the other apostles. The quality included revelation from the Father. It is this spiritual quality that the church is built upon, not the person of Peter himself. The mystical seat of Peter
is infallible in faith and morals because of this spiritual quality.