This question has proboly been asked half a million time but, could ya’ll answer it one more time for dear ol’ Montie :o ? On Jesus and Peter scence how would we prove difinitivly that Jesus was talking about Peter and not his profession of faith was what Jesus was going to build his church on? Thanks and God Bless.
In “The Papacy: God’s Gift to the Church”, Catholic Answers apologist Jimmy Akin gives a fine analysis of the context of this verse.
Also…Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray will answer any questions you have regarding this.
[quote=Lorarose]Also…Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray will answer any questions you have regarding this.
Peace be with you!
Yes, this book will answer not only any questions you have, but also hundreds of other questions you didn’t even know you had! This book is such an excellent reference every apologist should have it on their shelf.
What you need to keep in mind when looking at any biblical references are these things:
Firstly, the Bible is the witness of the Church. It is impossible for the Church to misinterpret anything in it.
Secondly, there are primary interpretations for the various passages and there are secondary interpretations. The primary interpretation is the one the author intended to convey to us. And what did Matthew intend to tell us? That Jesus was giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter and that he would build his Church upon him.
And thirdly, secondary valid interpretations do not trump the primary ones. So it can be said that Jesus was building his Church on Peter’s faith, but also on Peter himself, which is the primary interpretation. It’s both and, not either or.
It is interesting that the Protestants are happy to argue against the obvious.
If Peter were not the rock referred to by Jesus, don’t you find it interesting that the see of Peter (Bishop of Rome) is the only intact line from the apostolic age? We know all of the names of all of the Popes that have succeeded Peter in Rome. To the best of my knowledge no other office, such as the successors to the bishop of Antioch, or Jerusalem etc, has such an unbroken line - nor have they demonstrated any period in history where they were undeniably in charge of the church.
If Peter were not the rock - its quite a coincidence that his office has survived intact for almost 2,000 years.