How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?


#1

It is generally believed that Mark is the earliest Gospel, written around 70 AD: 40 years after Jesus’ death. Matthew and Luke are thought to be based on Mark, and John is thought to be the latest of the 4.

This is the passage in Matthew 16 which the Church claims is evidence of its divine origin:

13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven.Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.
22 Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, "God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you."
23 He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
24 Then Jesus said to his disciples, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
25 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

There are nearly identical passages in Mark and Luke which omit the founding of the Church:

Mark 8:

27 Now Jesus and his disciples set out for the villages of Caesarea Philippi. Along the way he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that I am?"
28 They said in reply, "John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others one of the prophets."
29 And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said to him in reply, "You are the Messiah."
30 Then he warned them not to tell anyone about him.
31 He began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed, and rise after three days.
32 He spoke this openly. Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.
33 At this he turned around and, looking at his disciples, rebuked Peter and said, "Get behind me, Satan. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do."
34 He summoned the crowd with his disciples and said 8 to them, "Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.
35 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it.

Luke 9:

18 Once when Jesus was praying in solitude, and the disciples were with him, he asked them, "Who do the crowds say that I am?"
19 They said in reply, "John the Baptist; others, Elijah; still others, ‘One of the ancient prophets has arisen.’"
20 Then he said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Peter said in reply, "The Messiah of God."
21 He rebuked them and directed them not to tell this to anyone.
22 He said, "The Son of Man must suffer greatly and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised."
23 Then he said to all, "If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.
24 For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.
25 What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself?

If Jesus really did establish a Church upon Peter, don’t you find it very curious that both Mark and Luke omit this crucial fact?

Reference for quotes: usccb.org/nab/bible/


#2

[quote=askeptic]It is generally believed that Mark is the earliest Gospel, written around 70 AD: 40 years after Jesus’ death. Matthew and Luke are thought to be based on Mark, and John is thought to be the latest of the 4.

This is the passage in Matthew 16 which the Church claims is evidence of its divine origin:

There are nearly identical passages in Mark and Luke which omit the founding of the Church:

Mark 8:

Luke 9:

If Jesus really did establish a Church upon Peter, don’t you find it very curious that both Mark and Luke omit this crucial fact?

Reference for quotes: usccb.org/nab/bible/
[/quote]

No. Because the totality of Divine Revelation is not in Scripture alone. There were 7 other eyewitness accounts of what Jesus said that were not written down. Matthew 16:18 is just one piece of evidence in a laundry list of proof!

Ken


#3

To follow this line of argument, one must believe that the Gospel of Matthew is false.

When you start rejecting the Gospels, what do you have left?


#4

Welcome to Catholic Answers! :tiphat:

Matthew’s gospel includes it because the Gospel of Matthew was written for Jews. They would rightly understand what those texts mean.

The Gospel of Luke was written for the Gentiles.

The Gospel of Mark was written for (Greek-speaking) Romans.

The terms “bind & loose” were used for the Jewish High Priest. “Keys” in the Old Testament represented authority. There are many, many threads on these topics. The search function comes in handy.


#5

askeptic, you are right about the significance of this for some…as you might be aware I have even heard some consider it an interpolation…but there is no real proof of that…for people who do not accept the authority of the Catholic church and are not innerantists…the point is actually quite powerful…agreed.
BH


#6

[size=2]The study below is a well document rebuttal to the theory that mark’s Gospel was written first. The study also covers reasons why some Gospels would leave out certain incidents. It’s well worth the time.[/size]

THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS

The theory that Mark’s gospel was the first to be written dominates New Testament Studies today. This theory has led to serious and widespread doubts about the historical reliability of the Gospels, upon which our understanding of Christianity is built.

‘The Authors of the Gospels’ sets forth an alternative view. Using primary sources written by the earliest Christian historians (The Church Fathers) and the findings of modern literary analysis, the author argues strongly in favour of a return to the chronology widely used prior to the time of Jerome.

This would conform to the traditional teaching of the Church that two of the Gospels were written by eyewitness companions of Jesus. The author points out that this teaching was recently renewed in a Dogmatic Constitution, Dei Verbum, of the Second Vatican Council.

more


#7

An element of the deposit of faith does not somehow become more important or more believable when it is mentioned in more than one gospel. The deposit of faith, including the nature and authority of the Church, was given to the Church. The Church did not need to discover that nature and authority in the scriptures.


#8

Hello,

This is another referrence:

Joh 21:14 This was now the third time that Jesus was revealed to the disciples after he was raised from the dead.
Joh 21:15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
Joh 21:16 He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.
Joh 21:18 Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go."
ESV

1.Jesus changes his name from Simon(Reed) to Peter(Rock)
2.Jesus will build ‘His’ church upon this Rock
3.Jesus gives Peter the ‘keys’ to the Kingdom
4.Jesus puts Peter in charge of the flock.
5.In the early Churches, the five Patriarchs of the five Churches looked to Peter for final decisions on church issues.

Jesus is saying that Simon-Peter, will be the ‘rock’ of the church.
From the Old Testament, keys were symbolic of kingly authority in the absence of the King.(i.e. the the one left in charge) Jesus asks Peter to care for the flock, the sheep. We are the sheep. That would make Peter a shepard here on earth, Vicar of Christ

Peace to you,
Scott


#9

Since neither Mark nor Luke were present at Caesarea Philippi, but Matthew was, this does not seem to be a damning omission.

Is Matthew the inspired and inerrant Word of God, or isn’t it?


#10

Peace be with you!

I think one way to look at is like this: the different Gospels were written to highlight different things. Take Luke, for example. Luke is the only Gospel that containst the Annunciation of Gabriel to Mary and the Incarnation of Jesus. The other Gospels certainly mention that he was born of a virgin (at least the other two synoptic Gospels), but they don’t specifically mention when or how that happened; we don’t actually see it. Matthew obviously wanted to highlight what Jesus said to Peter at Caesaria Philipi, so he included it. Mark, Luke, and John focused on other things that Jesus said and did.

And welcome to the forums!

In Christ,
Rand


#11

Hi, I’m new, and I probably won’t be here very long.

I like the groups where you can receive discussions by email. Anyway, I was invited here from one of the moderators of a discussion group that I just mentioned.

This is my first post, and I will make this short and to the point.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church is built upon Peter. So why argue against it. That should prove that the true church that Jesus built is built on Christ, not a man. If someone came over from the Mormon school and claimed they were valid because their church was built by Christ upon Joseph Smith, everyone as one voice would condemn such a notion.

What’s the difference…If Catholicism insists that their church is built upon Peter, so be it.

My church is built upon the Rock of ages: Jesus Christ. :thumbsup:

and p.s…I came over here because of an article by K. Keating…sheesh, the man is anti-protestant and ought to be ashamed for stirring up bad blood between us.

Roady


#12

[quote=mercygate]Is Matthew the inspired and inerrant Word of God, or isn’t it?
[/quote]

That’s the bottom line, isn’t it? To reject Matthew is to reject the entire New Testament. And then where are we?


#13

[quote=Roady]Hi, I’m new, and I probably won’t be here very long.

I like the groups where you can receive discussions by email. Anyway, I was invited here from one of the moderators of a discussion group that I just mentioned.

This is my first post, and I will make this short and to the point.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church is built upon Peter. So why argue against it. That should prove that the true church that Jesus built is built on Christ, not a man. If someone came over from the Mormon school and claimed they were valid because their church was built by Christ upon Joseph Smith, everyone as one voice would condemn such a notion.

What’s the difference…If Catholicism insists that their church is built upon Peter, so be it.

My church is built upon the Rock of ages: Jesus Christ. :thumbsup:

and p.s…I came over here because of an article by K. Keating…sheesh, the man is anti-protestant and ought to be ashamed for stirring up bad blood between us.

Roady
[/quote]

So it is your understanding that the Church founded upon the rock of Jesus Christ could not also stand upon the rock of Peter, whom Jesus personally appointed, re-named “Rock”, and personally promised to build his Church upon?

You say you are a Protestant. I guess you’re not a *sola Scriptura *Protestant, huh?


#14

Don’t waste yout time on this one people.

Askeptic is an “Agnostic” so anything Divine about Scripture or anything this person won’t believe.

Ken


#15

You guys are acting like you have never encountered a Christian who is not an innerantist or Catholic. Is that the case? Curious.
I will use the same argument you guys use against Sola Scripture. The Bible does not teach innerancy…does it?
BH


#16

let’s see if I can do this correctly.

This is a response to Mercygate, who argued against my AGREEMENT with the church’s teaching from Matthew 16:18.

I’m afraid your attempt at including Jesus Christ along with Peter is not found in the text, nor is it church teaching.
:eek:

Roady


#17

[quote=Roady]let’s see if I can do this correctly.

This is a response to Mercygate, who argued against my AGREEMENT with the church’s teaching from Matthew 16:18.

I’m afraid your attempt at including Jesus Christ along with Peter is not found in the text, nor is it church teaching.
:eek:

Roady
[/quote]

I hope you stay around long enough to clarify. I have read the relevant post but I am afraid I am lost. Exactly what is not found in the text. I found Mercygate to be accurate in observation and I found your statements confusing.


#18

[quote=mercygate]So it is your understanding that the Church founded upon the rock of Jesus Christ could not also stand upon the rock of Peter, whom Jesus personally appointed, re-named “Rock”, and personally promised to build his Church upon?

You say you are a Protestant. I guess you’re not a *sola Scriptura *Protestant, huh?
[/quote]

It has been my experience that those who come here to attack Catholicism practice something called “sola Scriptura but not whola da Scriptura.” Only those verses which fit their agenda are acceptable.


#19

[quote=kleary]Don’t waste yout time on this one people.

Askeptic is an “Agnostic” so anything Divine about Scripture or anything this person won’t believe.

Ken
[/quote]

And this is a response to Ken who thinks an agnostic is a waste of time. I’m glad that someone didn’t have that attitude with me before I became a Christian.

Roady


#20

[quote=adrift]I hope you stay around long enough to clarify. I have read the relevant post but I am afraid I am lost. Exactly what is not found in the text. I found Mercygate to be accurate in observation and I found your statements confusing.
[/quote]

Ok, so your name is Adrift…bear with me, I’m new at this kind of posting.

This should be easy to clarify because I don’t have to go too far back to my original posting. I said that I agreed with Catholics that Jesus built his church upon Peter. But that the true and valid church is built upon Christ. That if a Mormon came on this forum and claimed that his church was also built upon a man, everyone would speak out against the notion. Therefore, since the Catholic church is built upon a man and his successors, then so be it. Because the true church that Christ built is upon none other than Christ, the Rock.

Mr. Mercy responded by asking if the church could be built upon two rocks, being Christ and Peter. I responsed to his response with:

No, that’s not in the text and it is against church teaching.

Roady


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.