Many of my brothers and sisters in Christ are under the false assumption that Jesus built the Church on Peters "confession of faith" Not on Peter himself. I now will do my best on this post to explain how the one true Church was built on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles. Christ of course is the builder of the Church, and he is the wise man who built his house on a rock.(Peter).
The non-Catholic interpretation is that Jesus was not referring to Peter but to Peters confession. It always baffles me when people tell me this because as we are about to see, there is nothing in this verse that even hints that Jesus will build his Church on Peters confession of faith.
The scriptures are so clear on this that I see this as one of the few times there should not even be any argument over what it means.
To understand this will take patience on part of the reader, because these explanations cannot be dumbed down because of the significance of this truth.
Mark 3:16; John 1:42 – Jesus renames Simon "Kepha" in Aramaic which literally means "rock."
So for this point we learn one very important thing, Peters very name means rock. There is no question that Peters name means rock. Protestants try to argue that Jesus changed his name to "a small stone".
Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble.
Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock.
To make this easier to understand for those who are not familiar with this distinction, the New Testament was written in the greek language. However, Jesus Christ spoke Aramaic. So when he used the word rock he was speaking in a language that used a word that meant big rock. Not little rock as many on the BC thread try to imply with poor sources from the internet.
Matt. 16:18 - Jesus said in Aramaic, you are "Kepha" and on this "Kepha" I will build my Church. In Aramaic, "kepha" means a massive stone, and "evna" means little pebble. Some non-Catholics argue that, because the Greek word for rock is "petra", that "Petros" actually means "a small rock", and therefore Jesus was attempting to diminish Peter right after blessing him by calling him a small rock. Not only is this nonsensical in the context of Jesus' blessing of Peter, Jesus was speaking Aramaic and used "Kepha," not "evna." Using Petros to translate Kepha was done simply to reflect the masculine noun of Peter.
Moreover, if the translator wanted to identify Peter as the "small rock," he would have used "lithos" which means a little pebble in Greek. Also, Petros and petra were synonyms at the time the Gospel was written, (meaning those 2 words were used interchangebly all the time) so any attempt to distinguish the two words is inconsequential. Thus, Jesus called Peter the massive rock, not the little pebble, on which He would build the Church. (You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!).
Now, I realize that is quite a bit of information to follow. Take your time reading this slowly and carefully think about this. It actually took me quite a bit of time to understand these concepts so if you got this the first time around, your much smarter then I was. (grammer was never my strong point in school anyway!)
Now, if you look at the verse closely it says "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church"
Some Christians actually try to argue that Christ is referring to himself as the rock in this sentence. But that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Think about this for a minute please, Jesus actually says this: "You are Peter (rock) and upon this rock I shall build my Church!"
It's clear Jesus is speaking directly to Peter. He would not word things in a way that would have confused us as to what he actually was trying to say.
If Jesus wanted to point out that he is referring to himself, he would have worded it like this: "You are Peter, and upon myself I shall build my Church!"
Thats what most Protestants are trying to make this verse say. Which it clearly doesn't. But thats how there actually interpreting it.
Matt. 16:18-19 – to further rebut the Protestant argument that Jesus was speaking about Peter’s confession of faith (not Peter himself) based on the revelation he received, the verses are clear that Jesus, after acknowledging Peter’s receipt of divine revelation, turns the whole discourse to the person of Peter: Blessed are “you” Simon, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to “you,” and I tell “you,” “you” are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church. I will give “you” the keys to the kingdom, and whatever “you” bind and loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven. Jesus’ whole discourse relates to the person of Peter, not his confession of faith.
So lets run by this again ok?
Jesus identifies who PETER is. The same way Peter identifies who Christ is.
One guy says "Your the Christ!'
And Jesus says "Your the rock"
Isn't that amazing? It makes perfect sense that theirs a point where Peters confession of faith ends. Then Christs confession that Peter is rock on whom he will build the Church begins.
So once again lets sum up the things the Catholic Church teaches about this verse.
#1 Christ is not referring to Peters confession of faith, there is no mistaken this from grammatical reasoning that Jesus is talking to Peter, not talking about himself as non-Catholics claim.
#2 The argument that Peter was a "small stone" is a complete and unreliable argument for the simple fact that Jesus does earlier in the Bible refer Simon as Rock. Not little rock when he uses the word Kepha. (If Peter was a small rock the Bible would use the word Evna but it doesn't)
Lastly, I wish to make the point that Christ is also the Rock. That just because Peter is the Rock does not mean Christ (God) cannot be the rock of our faith. Christ is the very rock of our faith. However, the earthly Church had an actual foundation, that foundation was Peter and the Apostles on whom Jesus built the Church.
Jesus did not build a Church based on Peters confession of faith. He built a Church on actual living people.
Thank you for your time. For those who always thought Peters name meant a small stone, and who always thought that Jesus was referring to himself, I hope you found this explanation helpful in understanding why Catholics don't support the Protestant interpretation.
Moving forward, many Christians today have never heard the writings of the early Church Fathers. I highly recommend all Christians have a chance to read about what the early Church taught and how they were interpreting scripture.
Remember, they lived very close and some actual lived during the time of the Apostles. These men were not the least bit confused that Jesus built the Church on the foundation of Peter and the Apostles.
Now thats something worth thinking about isn't it?
As a Catholic some of my brothers and sisters in Christ do not understand why the Catholic Church celebrates the sabbath on Sundays. Some believe it is because the Church simply changed the day of worship from Saturday, to Sunday. However, the explanation is quite different from what non-Catholics have said on this issue.
The Catholic Church never changed the day of the sabbath, rather it was Jesus Christ and the Apostles who founded this tradition.
Isaiah 1:13
"Bring your worthless offerings no longer, Incense is an abomination to Me. New moon and sabbath, the calling of assemblies-- I cannot endure iniquity and the solemn assembly."
Firstly, in the book of Isaiah God begins to show that he is not pleased with the Sabbath. The Catholic Church realizes that the old ways of the Jews was not sufficient nor pleasing to God.
This is one starting example of how God never intended for us to maintain all the traditions of the Jewish people.
Another thing the Catholic Church considers also is that the Sabbath was given, not to mankind, but specifically to Israel alone as a special covenant sign between her and God. (Ex.31 :13 ,17)
Also, if a person were to examine the New Testaments closely, as many scholars have, nowhere in the New Testament are Christians commanded to worship or meet on the Saturday sabbath. Instead what we learn from the scriptures is that the Christians would meet on the first day of the week. Which was Sunday.
1 Corinthians 16 (Christians are giving money for the collection on the first day of the week.)
Acts 20 : 7 (Paul preached to Christians at Troa whose practice was to meet to break bread on the first day of the week)
John 20: 19,26 (Jesus after his resurrection met with the disciples on the first day of the week. Sunday.)
Romans 14: 15,6 (When Paul is discussing which day to meet, he does not say that we must meet on the Saturday Sabbath. He says "Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind."
SDAs claim that the Catholic Church after Constantine in 320 AD changed the day of worship from Saturday to Sunday. This simply is not true. There are at least ten citations from the Early Church Fathers from 90 to 300 A.D who all say that the practice of Christians everywhere was to meet on Sunday, not the Jewish Saturday Sabbath. There is one thing that is certain of the Early Church, and that is that it met on Sundays. Among them were the following leaders in the early Christian Church.
St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (110)
St. Justin Martyr (100-165)
Epistle of Barnabas (120-150)
St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons 178
Bardiasan (born 154)
St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (200-25
Eusebius of Caesarea (315)
Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (300)
Didache of the Apostles (70-75)
Epistle of Pliny (112)
Col. 2:16-17 shows conclusively that the sabbath law is no longer binding:
"Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days: which are a shadow of things to come; but the body is of Christ."
So based on this verse alone, it simply is not fair for any denomination of Christianity (Seventh Day Adventists mostly) to chastise the Catholic Church for not observing the Jewish Saturday Sabbath.
Matt. 28:1; Mark 16:2,9; John 20:1,19- the Gospel writers purposely reveal Jesus' resurrection and appearances were on Sunday. This is because Sunday had now become the most important day in the life of the Church.
This idea that Jesus did not rise from the dead on Sunday is simply not the view of the early Christian Church. While there are some that would try to contest this, this fact remained uncontested (as many of the early Christian doctrines) until 1,600 yrs after the Church is established.
Acts 20 - this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
Heb. 4:8-9 - regarding the day of rest, if Joshua had given rest, God would not later speak of "another day," which is Sunday, the new Sabbath. Sunday is the first day of the week and the first day of the new creation brought about by our Lord's resurrection, which was on Sunday.
If, therefore, those who were brought up in the ancient order of things have come to the possession of a new hope, no longer observing the Sabbath, but living in the observance of the Lord's Day, on which also our life has sprung up again by Him and by His death--whom some deny, by which mystery we have obtained faith, and therefore endure, that we may be found the disciples of Jesus Christ, our only Master." Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 9:1 (A.D. 110).
This is yet another shinning example of why Catholics practice worship on Sundays. Saint Ignatius one of the original Christian Fathers mentions no longer observing the Jewish Sabbath, but Living int he observance of the Lords Day (Sunday).
"The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath" (Mk. 2:27)
In her book Cosmic Conflict, published in 1844, Seventh-Day Adventist prophetess Ellen White argues that the early Christian Church became apostate at the time of the decree of Constantine (p. 551–554). This opinion is refuted by current scholarship even from Seventh-Day Adventists. S. Bacchiocchi, a leading sabbatarian SDA scholar, writes in From Sabbath to Sunday (1997) that the change in worship days began around the year 60 in Rome but was not generally accepted until after the decree of Hadrian in 135 (p. 303–321).
There is a glaring inconsistency in Mrs. White’s belief that the church apostatized in 321: She accepts specific doctrines approved by the Catholic Church after the date of alleged apostasy. Three examples will suffice to make the point: (1) the canon of the New Testament was approved in 393 at the Council of Hippo; (2) the doctrine of the Trinity was defined in 325 at the Council of Nicea; and (3) the doctrine of the true manhood true Godship of Jesus was defined in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon.
Sabbatarians hold that the Sabbath is part of the decalogue, which is the immutable law of God. The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that the ten commandments are "fundamentally immutable" (no. 2072). However, the Church considers the Sabbath to have two aspects: an essential part to worship the Lord on one day per week and a ceremonial part as to the exact day.
I hope this helps some of you understand the position of the Catholic Church. The decision to worship on Sunday is a tradition that was handed down by the early Church to which the Catholic Church still maintains to this very day as it did 2,000 yrs ago. Whether people agree that it is right is another matter of course. However this is overwhelming evidence that proved the Early Christians seemed to know that the Lord's day was seen as Sunday in the New Covenant.
When I think of many of the silly things some people believe about the Catholic Church, one of the most absurd claims is that Constantine himself started up the religion I am currently following.
Now, lets be fair here kids, I know Protestantism has a habit of lying to their own congregations about how the Catholic Church came about, I respect this propaganda because they need their membership to believe it to keep their congregations going and their paychecks steady. So I can be a realist in that sense.
However, the facts are these, Constantine didn't just wake up one morning, and say he is going to start a Catholic religion and everyone is going to follow it and be Catholic.
Sorry kids, thats not what happened. Lets use a little common sense today shall we my friends?
#1 If it were true Constantine DID in fact start the Catholic religion, that religion still would have had to exist in some form prior to Constantine requiring it to be the state religion. These things wouldn't just happen overnight as some poorly informed Protestants think they did.
#2 The early Church fathers wrote about the Catholic Church over 100 years before Constantine himself was even in power. In fact, their were already Catholic Popes (some of them were martyred) before the Emperor was even the Emperor.
#3 Constantine converted to the Catholic faith, he never started the whole damn thing, all he did was stop the execution of Christians that was taken place at the time, making it safe for them to worship in the open. The man certainly didn't come up with the idea (although I know many Protestants on BC here wish he did)
Saying Constantine started the Catholic Church, sounds as stupid to me, as someone saying Captain Jack Sparrow was the first President of the United States. It sounds nice, but it's not even true in the slighest.
I hope my Protestants brothers and sisters find this educational, and this helps further disprove one lie that I know many Protestants believe about Catholicism, I'm just setting the record straight.
Also. The following early Church Fathers listed were all Catholics, and all existed before the time of Constantine.
The Apostle John was actually still alive at the same time as a Catholic Pope. I'll get into more detail at a later date when I have more time.
Here is a few names of the early Church Fathers who were Catholics, and existed before Constantine. (I know right, how did these Constantine sayers miss this??)
St. Ignatius of Antioch who lived around 50-107AD
St. Polycarp of Smyrma who lived around 69-165AD
Pope St. Clement I of Rome who lived around 60-99AD
I think that given the fact Pope Clement was alive about 200 yrs before Constantine already disproves the ignorant notion that Catholicsm was started up by some Roman Emperor. Now go and tell your friends the next time they say Constantine made the Catholic religion, what you learned today!
I hear this one ALL the time, so I thought I'd set the record straight. Many times many people have posted how the big bad evil star wars like intergalactic empire (The Catholic Church) changed the 10 commandments so they could worship Statues! and the Virgin Mary instead of God!
This is a very absurd claim (as being a Catholic I know we don't worship statues or Mary). I
t gets old like a broken record having to repeat the lies that certain Protestants tell their congregations. However, today I am going to set the record straight on exactly why the 10 Commandments of the Catholic Church do not APPEAR to be the same as the ones the Protestant Church uses.
The 7th day adventist group is one that constantly uses this criticism as well as one that we changed the say of the Sabbath. But I will get into that subject on a later date.
The Catholic Church never "Changed" any part of the commandments. Rather, the difference between how Catholics and Protestants number the commandments stems from the issue of how we interpret the prohibition on idolatry in Exodus 20:17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-8.
Lets look at how the Catholic Church numbers the commandments.
I. Thou shalt have no strange God's before me.
II. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
III. Keep holy the sabbath.
IV. Honor your father and your mother.
V. Thou shalt not kill
VI. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
VII. Thou shalt not steal.
VIII. Thou shalt not bear false witness.
IX. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors wife.
X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.
Protestants however number them differently, resulting in a discrepancy:
I. Thou shalt have no strange God's before me. II. Thou shalt not carve graven images. III. Thou shalt not take trhe name of the Lord thy God in vain.
IV. Keep holy the sabbath. V. Honor your father and your mother. VI. Thou shalt not kill. VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery. VIII. Thou shalt not steal. IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness. X. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, and thou shalt not covet they neighbor's goods.
The first commandment is against idolatry of any kind, including statue worship.
So it's senseless to divide it, as Protestants do, into two separate commandments. To worship a graven image as an idol is the exact same sin as "having strange gods" before God himself.
The other discrepancy arises when Protestants incorrectly combine two different sins into a single commandment.
"Thou shalt not covet they neighbor's wife, and thou shalt not covet they neighbors goods".
The problem here is that coveting your neighbors wife is in the category of the sin of lust, while coveting his goods is in the category of theft.
The Catholic Church condemns as idolatry any form of statue worship or superstition. It also recognizes that there is legitimate religious use for statues and icons that is NOT offensive to God.
I will get into that in a later blog. For right now, just know that it is not the Catholic Church that changed the commandments.
Today in Christianity, many things are now being distorted.
I noticed that many Christians have abandoned the traditional teachings of the early Christian Church. Many Christians now believe that baptism is only symbolic, instead of what it actually is, a cleansing of original sin as well as a means by which we are initiated into Christs salvation.
Accepting Christ means obeying the things he told us to do. While baptism is a sign of a Christians obedience, the act of baptism itself is more then just a mere symbol.
Does the bible teach that baptism is merely symbolic?
No. I'm afraid it does not. The bible actually says baptism causes an inward change. it is not merely some sign of obedience. This notion that some Churches teach is not biblical it all. It is merely private opinion based not on scripture, but on personal opinion.
Peter said to them "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins;and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit." (Acts 2: 38 )
Notice that Saint Peter clearly states that one must be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. It never states making some "private acceptance of Jesus in your heart" will cleanse you of original sin. It states being baptized is the first step towards being reconciled with God.
Funny how some Christians teach that baptism is not a cleansing of sin. Yet this verse clearly states that it does. It says repent AND be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins.
Not just repent and your sins are forgiven without need of baptism. If baptism were not required as part of the salvation deal, we would not even bother doing it.
There is yet another verse, where Jesus Christ tells us that we must be baptized. He does not say this is a mere symbol that does not do anything for you.
"Unless you are born again, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" John 3:3
He instructs that to be born again, it must be done with WATER and SPIRIT. Jesus flat out says that one must be baptized in both in order to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
This really is not hard to mis-interpret, so I do not understand why some people on Big Church post that it is merely symbolic. Once again, I would like anyone reading this to please point out where scripture says baptism is merely symbolic. I will be very interested to see such a verse in scripture indeed.
Now people also have told me that baptism cannot save you. However, that is not what Saint Peter says.
1 Peter 3:21
"Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you-- not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for a good conscience-- through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,"
I do not think Saint Peter agrees with the current Christians or their Churches that teach that baptism does not cleanse you of sin. But if people wish to cling to their private views that go against one of the Apostles. Their entitled to do so. Clearly some Christians must know better then Apostles the importance, and necessity of baptism.
I could go on and on about this subject. Their is more then enough evidence to back my claim that baptism is not just symbolic. Their is nothing to back the claim that baptism is just a symbol though.
The Thief on the Cross, yes I know about the thief on the cross. It is possible for a person to be baptized by desire, if under certain conditions a water baptism cannot be achieved. In fact, some traditions taught the tears of the thief provided the water for his very own baptism.
Bottom line, Christ can always make exceptions, but the intended means by which we are to begin our entrance into the Church is baptism. It is not a suggestion, it's a mandate.
Over the course of my studies in Christianity I learned of a doctrine that has made it very difficult for anyone to have the fullness of truth that was passed down from the time of the Apostles.
This doctrine is probably not very well known because most Christians do not even realize that their Churches teach it.
What I refer to is called Sola Scripture. Sola scripture is the philosophy that the bible alone is the sole authority on matters of faith. It is the cornerstone of most denominations. Which all claim to be "Bible" based.
The problem with this idea is, as nice as it sounds it is simply not true. In fact, the Bible did not exist in the form we see it today back in the time line of the early Christian Church, so simply following "Bible" alone could not be the sole rule of faith.
If a Christian Church is teaching the doctrine of follow only the bible, does that line up what the bible says in 1 Timothy 3:15?
"The Church is the Pillar and foundation of truth"
If it can be demonstrated that sola scripture is a false doctrine, then that means that Church is in fact a false Church. Since the Church being a "Pillar and Foundation of truth" means that it cannot teach any false doctrines. Only one crack in that Churchs foundation is enough to prove it is not the Church of Jesus Christ, or his apostles.
I love the Bible very much, to me it is the Word of God. However, the idea that we only go by the bible itself as if it is the sole rule of faith, is to me a contradictory posistion for the simple fact that early Christians did not have a "New Testament" but depended on oral tradition.
I could find no single verse in scripture that states sola scripture.
I leave it to you all to decide if this "bible alone" idea came from the Apostles, or from men who wanted to interpret scripture anyway they see fit.
- this text shows the apostolic tradition of gathering together to celebrate the Eucharist on Sunday, the "first day of the week." Luke documents the principle worship was on Sunday because this was one of the departures from the Jewish form of worship.
