I don't get the whole Peter thing either


Can someone please explain why Peter is such a big deal…he wasn’t the only one Jesus commanded to go and tell about Him.


But he was the only one given the keys to the kingdom. This was an office referenced to in Isaiah. Are you questioning the primacy of Peter or the Papacy in general?



um…Im not too good with this but both kindof i guess. I need help with it all basically :slight_smile:


[quote=phantomsilver]um…Im not too good with this but both kindof i guess. I need help with it all basically :slight_smile:

I don’t know how uninformed you are, but to translate:

Papacy = the office of the pope
primacy of Peter = Peter being the head of the apostles


The big deal is that it’s like a lot of other things that people picture as being “Catholic only.” A lot of people reject the Catholic first, then later dismiss what it teaches, rather than finding out what it teaches first and deciding based on that.

Anyway. . . . The big deal with Peter is that he is the first Pope. Besides Jesus, he is the most mentioned person in the New Testament. Jesus hand picked him to be the leader of the Church, gave him a new name, gave him the power to forgive sins, gave him the keys to the kingdom, and promised to build his one and only church on him. To reject the Catholic Church is to reject Peter. To reject Peter is to reject Christ. As Jesus said, “Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.” Luke 10:16


[quote=phantomsilver]Can someone please explain why Peter is such a big deal…he wasn’t the only one Jesus commanded to go and tell about Him.

If all there was to it was “go and preach” there would be something to your argument but, that is not the scripture that the Catholic Church points to. Here is something you can read about this catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
I will condense it for you just in case you do not feel like reading the whole thing. In Matthew 16 Jesus asks “Who do you say I am?” Peter Says “You are the Christ, The son of the living God.” And Jesus says “Blessed art thou Peter… And I say to you, You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and whatever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth is loosed in heaven…” and so on and so forth. Jesus doesn’t turn to the profession of faith but, sticks with peter through out the whole statement. Peter is the Rock (Peter is “Rock” in aramic) that Jesus would build his church on, that would loose and bind things which would also get the keys to the kingdom. There is a lot of authority in this.
I hope I did an alright. If you want me to go into it more, I shall try my best.


Note that the first twelve chapters of Acts focus on Peter as the chief actor in the new Church.


The name “Peter” didn’t exist before Christ renamed Simon. Many people try to discredit the connection between Petros (Peter) and petra (the Greek word for “rock”), but this simple fact should refute all their claims. Some will say that because the words are not exactly identical then “Petros” doesn’t mean “rock.” This is absurd. The only reason that the word’s gender was changed was for the simple fact that Peter is a man! To call him Petra would be insulting. The second thing that people will say to discredit the connection is that Petros means “small stone” and petra means “large rock.” There is some truth to this claim, but not much. There used to be a distinction between these words, but, to quote from the “Peter the Rock” article found here on the Catholic Answers website:

“Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant “rock.” If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).”

For some good sources on the subject of Peter, I would suggest reading the articles found at the link below:
Church & Papacy



Finally, here are some quotes from Protestant scholars that admit that Peter was the Rock (this is taken from catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801word.asp ):

“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, 356].

“The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in verse 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the Rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification” [New American Commentary: Matthew, 22:252].

“By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself” “Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742].

“The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter’s confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church’s foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied” (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

“It is well known that the Greek word petra translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (‘Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ . . . There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that he was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter” [Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew, 303].

“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

Finally, have you ever heard of the Church Fathers? They were the first Christians that were often disciples of Christ’s apostles. They wrote about some of the issues that separate Catholics and Protestants and give witness to the beliefs of the early Church. If you haven’t already, I suggest looking into them. :thumbsup:


Anyone familiar with Isaiah 22 would note the position (or office) that Jesus is handing to Kephas/Peter (the Rock). Take a look at what it says:

I will thrust you (a) from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him (b) your authority. © He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place (d) the key of the House of David on his shoulder; (e) when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. (Is 22:19-22).

A) This position is an office. It is the prime minister of the kingdom of David. This position resides in EVERY kingdom throughout the bible, although sometimes under other names, i.e. Grand Vizier. Take a look at the story of Joseph in Egypt. Also, note that in Acts, it’s obvious that Kephas (The Rock) recognizes that these positions are offices when he talks of replacing Judas. He uses the term “bishopric” which translates to “office”.

B) This position obviously instills in its owner authority. We’ll get more specific later.

C) He shall be a father. Pope translates to Papa. The Italians lovingly call him “Il Papa”. I love that term.

D) The key to the House of David is the symbol of the Prime Minister’s power of authority. Again, in all the kingdoms there were symbols of this position. In Egypt, Joseph was given Pharaoh’s signet ring to show his position.

E) You’ll recognize the parallel between opening and shutting (Is.) and binding and loosing (Mt.).

Remember now, Jesus has been preaching about the Kingdom of God. Not a democracy. Not a confederacy. A Monarchy! All prophecies refer that he would rule over the House of David, the only kingdom that Judea saw, other than Saul.



Golly. I feel humbled. You all did so much better than me. I feel ashamed.


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.