Who exactly is 'the rock' on whom Jesus built His church?

[Zeno11]

I was always taught that St Peter was the 'rock' upon which the church was founded. Now a protestant friend has told me that this is a false teaching that the Bible itself contradicts. His reasoning is:

Jesus, not Peter, is the 'rock that the builders disallowed'; and the 'rock' is Peter's faith upon which He built His church after Peter's reply to the question 'Who do you say I am?' to which Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'.

Peter himself said:
“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ... ” (1 Peter 2:6-8)

If Peter says Jesus is the rock, why do we now say Peter is?

My friend goes on to say that the early Church fathers did not see Peter as the 'rock' and that Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter. He says the Church is teaching a false doctrine.

How do I answer this claim? It would help my response was scripture based, as that is another of my friend's problems with Catholicism, as he says that the church puts tradition before scripture.

[Elizium23]

Both Peter and Jesus are rocks, they are just different types of rock.

Jesus is "the stone which the builders have rejected has become the cornerstone."

The ancient engineers and working men of Israel would have readily understood this metaphor. The cornerstone to a building is the finest work of masonry, an expertly hewn block that holds the whole thing together.

Peter is "upon this rock I shall build my Church." Peter is the foundation for a metaphorical building. That Jesus may have meant "Peter's faith" is just a feeble equivocation meant to distract us from the institution of the office of Pope. Peter is a foundation of solid rock, just as Jesus explained in his parable:

Other Christian ecclesial communities, created in schism and founded by men, are built on sand.

As for the charge that the Church puts Tradition before Scripture: Scripture is Tradition. The Church was founded before the New Testament was written; the Church gave us the Bible in Tradition, which form a continuity with each other as the inspired Word of God. They are inseparable. Other Christians attempt to view the Bible in isolation, but this too is built on sand, because without Tradition, there would be no Bible.

[Daizies]

These may help:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...rocks-required
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-successors
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy
http://www.catholic.com/magazine/art...%99s-authority
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/origins-of-peter-as-pope

[mark a]

Originally Posted by Zeno11

I was always taught that St Peter was the 'rock' upon which the church was founded. Now a protestant friend has told me that this is a false teaching that the Bible itself contradicts. His reasoning is:

Jesus, not Peter, is the 'rock that the builders disallowed'; and the 'rock' is Peter's faith upon which He built His church after Peter's reply to the question 'Who do you say I am?' to which Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'.

Peter himself said:
“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ... ” (1 Peter 2:6-8)

If Peter says Jesus is the rock, why do we now say Peter is?

My friend goes on to say that the early Church fathers did not see Peter as the 'rock' and that Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter. He says the Church is teaching a false doctrine.

How do I answer this claim? It would help my response was scripture based, as that is another of my friend's problems with Catholicism, as he says that the church puts tradition before scripture.

They can argue about big rock/ little rock, male rock/ female rock all they want, but Peter was given Jesus' keys.

[DaveBj]

Here's my take on it. Jesus said, talking to Peter, "Thou are Kepha (the name he had already given to Simon, as recorded in John chapter 1), and on this kepha I will build my Church. . ." At this time they were at Caesarea Philippi, one of whose physical features is a huge slab of rock, a natural kepha.

When Jesus said, ". . . on this kepha I will build my Church," there were three possible interpretations. He could have been talking about the big slab of rock, but it is not recorded historically that He built the Church on the big rock at Caesarea Philippi. He could have been talking about Himself, but Matthew (an eyewitness to the event) does not record that Jesus pointed to Himself when He made that utterance. Or He could have been talking about the man whom he had just called by the name Kepha.

The last interpretation makes the most sense to me. "You are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church."

[Link0126]

Peter is the rock. the early Christians knew this. Your friend is not in line with Christian tradition.

[po18guy]

Please get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies and/or The Essential Catholic Survival Guide. Both will help you defend your faith against the ever-present friendly gunfire.

[ricofall]

Originally Posted by Zeno11

My friend goes on to say that the early Church fathers did not see Peter as the 'rock' and that Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter. He says the Church is teaching a false doctrine.

I suggest you ask your friend about this. If the early Church fathers did not see the authority of the Pope, then why did Saint Jerome work on that little book called....the Bible? Why did Cyprian speak about the unity of the of Church and quote Mathew 16?

Protestants usually pick out passages from early Church writings that support their view without actually understanding the context of the writing. I encourage you to read about them. After all, if your friend does not recognized the Church as an authority, why is he using a Bible that was put together by the Church?

[Jacob50]

Zeno, click on the link under my description. That should help.

[pablope]

Originally Posted by Zeno11

I was always taught that St Peter was the 'rock' upon which the church was founded. Now a protestant friend has told me that this is a false teaching that the Bible itself contradicts. His reasoning is:

Jesus, not Peter, is the 'rock that the builders disallowed'; and the 'rock' is Peter's faith upon which He built His church after Peter's reply to the question 'Who do you say I am?' to which Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'.

Peter himself said:
“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ... ” (1 Peter 2:6-8)

If Peter says Jesus is the rock, why do we now say Peter is?


How do I answer this claim? It would help my response was scripture based, as that is another of my friend's problems with Catholicism, as he says that the church puts tradition before scripture.

Your friend's folly is he separates Peter and his faith....you cannot separate them...take them both together.

Look for the following at this site:http://www.catholic-convert.com/reso...gs/steve-rays/



■Peter and Succession: the Peg of Isaiah 22
■Peter and the Primacy in the New Testament
■Peter: Was the Rock Really Peter or only his Confession of Faith? Answering an Orthodox Christian

I will cite the following:

Abraham is also referred to as a Rock. “Hearken to me, you who pursue deliverance, you that seek the Lord; look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father, and to Sarah who bore you; for when he was but one I called him, and I blessed him, and made him many” (Is 51:1 2).

At the inception of the great Abrahamic covenant, God says He set up a rock from which the nation of Israel was hewn. Along with the designation as rock, Abram’s name was changed from Abram (father) to Abraham (father of a multitude). And in Matthew 16 he changes another name, this time changing Simon’s name to “Rock” upon which the Church will be established.

Referring to Matthew 16, and Peter as the Rock, Protestant professor David Hill writes, “In favor of interpreting the word-play as a personal reference is the rabbinic saying about Abraham: when the Holy one wanted to create the world, he passed over the generations of Enoch and of the Flood; but when he saw Abraham who was to arise, he said: ‘Behold, I have found a rock on which I can build and found the world’ therefore he called Abraham ‘rock,’ as it is said [Is 51:1] Look to the rock from which you were hewn’” (David Hill, The New Century Bible Commentary on The Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Mich: Wm. B. Eerdman Publ., 1972], 261). The Jewish listeners would immediately understand the import of Jesus’ words, richly couched in their Jewish heritage. The parallels were drawn between Abraham and Peter: name changes to designate new statuses, the designations of both as “rock”, and both standing at the fountainhead of the two major covenants of God with his people. In each case God began with one person to achieve a much larger goal.

So if your point is that only Christ can be the foundation, you begin with a great handicap because we see biblical warrant for other things to be referred to as “a foundation.” You cannot interchange descriptive figures of speech willy-nilly between different illustrations—commonly called “mixing metaphors.” Mixing metaphors does great violence to each textual illustration and is a good example of poorly “dividing the word of truth” (2 Tim 2:15). In the metaphorical description in Matthew 16, Jesus couldn’t be the foundation—he clearly states he is the builder, not the foundation! Builders lay foundations, they are not the foundation.

My friend goes on to say that the early Church fathers did not see Peter as the 'rock' and that Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine, not one of them calls the Bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys. For the Fathers, it is Peter’s faith — or the Lord in whom Peter has faith —which is called the Rock, not Peter. He says the Church is teaching a false doctrine.

Have him provide the quotation....most likely, it is one or two sentences, ignoring the context and the rest of the passage or writing.....in other words...proof texting.

The link also gives an example:


I could approach your list of quotes in two ways: First, I could show from the same Fathers passages where they acknowledge Peter as the Rock, and not only that, but that he was in a position of primacy, and that he had successors and that Rome was his See. At worst this would show that the Fathers used the passage for different reasons in different arguments. At worst it would show they were confused, forgot what they had written earlier, or vacillated in their theology. I will take a few examples from your list of Patristic quotations to show that the Fathers you quote not only don’t deny Peter was the Rock, but recognize him as the Rock foundation of the Church.

You wrote: “The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of Confession” (St. John Chrysostom (d. 407), 53rd Homily on St. Matthew).

You put quotation marks around this sentence implying it is a direct quote—which it is not! The direct quote is this: “Therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” And also, in your research paper you better cite the correct homily: it is not Homily 53, it is Homily 54, section 3.

Setting aside the context of Chrysostom’s statement for the moment, let’s take our first approach first. Does Chrysostom refer to Peter as the Rock elsewhere in his writing? Let’s look.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, . . . THIS VERY PETER, AND WHEN I NAME PETER, I NAME THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, THAT FIRM FOUNDATION, the great Apostles, the first of the disciples” (Hom. 3, de Poenit.).

What can we make of this in light of your dogmatic statements to the contrary? Did you not know this quotation existed? Let’s look at a few more.

“[Peter] always is the first to begin the discourse. Lo, there were a hundred and twenty (Acts 1:15); and he asks for one out of the whole multitude. Justly: he has the first authority in the matter, as having had all entrusted to him. For to him Christ said, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren’ ” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 3 in The Faith of Catholics, ed. by Rev. T. J. Capel [New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1885], 2:34).

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347407) says of St. Paul:

“What can be more lowly than such a soul? After such successes, wanting nothing of Peter, not even his assent, but being of equal dignity with him, (for at present I will say no more,) he comes to him as his [Paul’s] elder and superior. And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only not their better but not their equal. . . . He says, to visit Peter’; he does not say to see, but to visit and survey, a [Greek] word which those, who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities, apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18 in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, ed. by Philip Schaff [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12).

[Porknpie]

Originally Posted by Zeno11

I was always taught that St Peter was the 'rock' upon which the church was founded. Now a protestant friend has told me that this is a false teaching that the Bible itself contradicts. His reasoning is:

Jesus, not Peter, is the 'rock that the builders disallowed'; and the 'rock' is Peter's faith upon which He built His church after Peter's reply to the question 'Who do you say I am?' to which Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'.

Peter himself said:
“Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe, he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient ... ” (1 Peter 2:6-8)

There is a big church in Rome named St Peters, the first version of which was built in the early 300s AD and lasted 1000 years until the current church was built in the 1500s. Peter's body is buried under the high alter, surrounded by symbolic writing in the form of "keys", signifying St. Peter. He was not only the Rock but Jesus gave him the keys to what would be bound and loose on earth, would be bound and loose in heaven.
.

[Gamera]

Scripture uses three different "rock" metaphors. God is the "rock" of our salvation (Deut 32:15; Ps 62:2). Abraham is the "rock" from which the Jewish people were hewn (Isaiah 51:1). Peter is the "rock" on which the Church is built (Matt 16:18). To argue that "Peter can't be the rock because God is the rock" makes no more sense than to argue "God can't be the rock because Abraham is the rock." They are different metaphors. Peter's being the "rock" on which the Church is built does not detract from God being the "rock" of our salvation.