Protestants try to disprove Kepha in Matthew 16:18

[RedDeathsMask]

Help! Can someone please answer the objections on this website? http://www.justforcatholics.org/a124.htm

[mercygate]

Protestant refutations of the claim that Peter is not the rock by our own itsjustdave1988: http://itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/...matt-1618.html

Good thread on the Scripture Forum: http://forums.catholic.com/showthrea...petros%2Fpetra

The article is correct that the full-blown concept of the Papacy as having universal jurisdication grew over time. But it was held by early fathers, such as Ignatius and Irenaeus before the end of the second century. You can look that up. Check the articles listed on the left side of the CA home page.

No way is Peter NOT the rock.

[chadwilliams]

Originally Posted by RedDeathsMask

Help! Can someone please answer the objections on this website? http://www.justforcatholics.org/a124.htm

The underlying difference between Catholics and protestants is that the protestants believe "if it ain't in the bible, it ain't true."

Catholics don't believe that way, we have 2000 years of Tradition passed down from the earliest Christian Church to today.

If Jesus didn't mean to make Peter the Prince of the Apostles, the very first Christians sure did misunderstand that! Likewise, if Jesus didn't mean that the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, not mere symbols, then the very first Christians misunderstood that too!
http://www.catholic.com/library/Apos...Succession.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Orig...er_as_Pope.asp
http://www.catholic.com/library/Real_Presence.asp

Who do you believe - someone who lives in the year 2005 or someone who lived in 80 AD?

[RedDeathsMask]

You know, the Bible says slander is a sin; look what I just found.

"And he brought him to Jesus; and when Jesus beheld him, He said, Thou art Simon the son of Joannes: thou shall be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, Peter." It is not a great thing that the Lord said whose son Peter was. What is great to the Lord? He knew all the names of His own saints, whom He predestinated before the foundation of the world; and dost thou wonder that He said to one man, Thou art the son of this man, and thou shall be called this or that? Is it a great matter that He changed his name, and converted it from Simon to Peter? Peter is from petra, a rock, but the petra [rock]; is the Church; in the name of Peter, then, was the Church figured. And who is safe, unless he who builds upon the rock? And what saith the Lord Himself? "He that heareth these my words, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man building his house upon a rock" (he doth not yield to temptation). "The rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. But he that heareth my words, and doeth them not" (now let each one of us fear and beware), " I will liken him to a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand: the rain descended, the floods came, the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it." What profit is it to enter the Church for him who builds upon the sand? For, by hearing and not doing, he builds indeed, but on the sand. For if he hears nothing, he builds nothing; but if he hears, he builds. But we ask, Where? For if he hears and does, he builds upon the rock; if he hears and does not, he builds upon the sand. There are two kinds of builders, those building upon the rock, and those building upon the sand. What, then, are those who do not hear? Are they safe? Does He say that they are safe because they do not build? They are naked beneath the rains, before the winds, before the floods; when these come, they carry away: those persons before they overthrow the houses. It is then the only security, both to build, and to build upon the rock. If thou wilt hear and do not, thou buildest; but thou buildest a ruin: and when temptation comes it overthrows the house, and carries away thee with the ruin. But if thou dost not hear, thou art naked; thou thyself art dragged away by those temptations. Hear, then, and do; it is the only remedy. How many, perchance, on this day, by hearing and not doing, are hurried away on the stream of this festival! For, through hearing and not doing, the flood cometh, this annual festival; the torrent is filled, it will pass away and become dry, but woe to him whom it shall carry away! Know this, then, beloved, that unless a man hears and does, he builds not upon the rock, and he does not belong to that great name which the Lord so commended. For He has called thy attention. For if Simon had been called Peter before, thou wouldest not have so clearly seen the mystery of the rock, and thou wouldest have thought that he was called so by chance, not by the providence of God; therefore God willed that he should be called first something else, that by the very change of name the reality of the sacrament might be commended to our notice." (St. Augustine, Tractate 7on John 1:34-51)

[MariaG]

Frankly, the article is rather sad. They say we can not know for sure that Jesus spoke in Aramaic but then the writer assumes and writes everything as if he knows Jesus spoke in Greek.

[buffalo]

The Following is a list of Answers to common Objections to the Papacy

[RedDeathsMask]

http://www.catholic.com/library/Auth...ope_Part_2.asp

I found here that St. Augustine definently believed in the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

[RedDeathsMask]

Originally Posted by MariaG

Frankly, the article is rather sad. They say we can not know for sure that Jesus spoke in Aramaic but then the writer assumes and writes everything as if he knows Jesus spoke in Greek.

You know, the whole website is sad, it's just for us....

[mercygate]

Originally Posted by MariaG

Frankly, the article is rather sad. They say we can not know for sure that Jesus spoke in Aramaic but then the writer assumes and writes everything as if he knows Jesus spoke in Greek.

Right, MariaG. We don't know that Jesus spoke Aramaic -- except from the cross, in a state of excruciating agony, down at the bottom of his human reserves . . . and he quotes SCRIPTURE in Aramaic! Puh-leeze.

[RedDeathsMask]

Originally Posted by mercygate

Right, MariaG. We don't know that Jesus spoke Aramaic -- except from the cross, in a state of excruciating agony, down at the bottom of his human reserves . . . and he quotes SCRIPTURE in Aramaic! Puh-leeze.

"And he took the damsel by the hand, and said unto her, Talitha cumi." (Mark 5:41)

[Church Militant]

And then why is St.Peter called Cephas in so many other places in the NT? DUH!

RDM, I think we show tell "Dr." Mizzi "NO THANKS" for his "thoughtful" gift.
Pax vobiscum,

[Psalm45:9]

I'm thinking about when he states that with the gender issue, it should read, "Thou art PETROS and on this PETROS I will build my church." But wait a minute, then that would mean You are stone and on this stone I will build my church. Making Peter's faith meerly a stone, nothing significant.

[Milliardo]

Originally Posted by MariaG

Frankly, the article is rather sad. They say we can not know for sure that Jesus spoke in Aramaic but then the writer assumes and writes everything as if he knows Jesus spoke in Greek.

This is the sad cop-out of Protestants. They would claim they're not sure He spoke in Aramaic, nevermind if their own Bible scholars admit that He spoke in Aramaic. Sad that they should even deny their own schlars!

[Psalm45:9]

Originally Posted by Milliardo

Sad that they should even deny their own schlars!

I'm glad to see that there are even Baptists that recognize that Peter is indeed the rock.

[Ghosty]

I'll back the others up with the Cephas argument. Paul refers to Peter as Cephas, which is the obvious transliteration of Kepha into Greek. We can therefore determine exactly what Jesus called Peter first, and it wasn't Petros!