A NEW THEORY, THE ROCK WAS LITERAL
EVIDENCE FOR REJECTING CATHOLIC
INTERPRETATION
The head of the
Roman Catholic Church is called the Pope.
He claims to be the successor of St Peter the apostle on whom Christ
built the one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church. He goes as far as to claim to be
infallible. There is no evidence that if
Jesus made Peter the rock that he meant he was to be the head of the
Church. Jesus would have meant that if
Peter was the rock he would only be that as long as he stayed firm so it is a
conditional role he gets. The pope
claims that his office is unconditional for the Church needs him. So the papacy was not instituted by
Jesus. Moreover, Peter might have been
only the chief organiser of the Church meaning that if the pope is his
successor, the pope like any organiser may be rebelled against and broken away
from if he does not do his job. The pope
sees no evidence for his infallibility and his kingship over the Church so he
has stolen his position. He has stolen
the place of Christ and is antichrist.
Pope John Paul II claimed that the papacy never misleads the Church and
yet he came out against the Bible teaching on the rightness of liberal capital
punishment! To say as he did that
capital punishment is evil for the person might be innocent however unlikely
this seems, accuses Jesus of backing up an evil God who commanded these
executions for apostasy, heresy and sexual sins. This is the man who insists that condoms must
not be used even by a married man trying to avoid giving AIDS to his wife!
The Church says Peter was the rock the foundation of the Church and the Church was built on so it follows then that Peter and the pope his successor have to hold the Church together. The Roman Church has never said that the Roman Pontiff is infallible or acting without error when he excommunicates for history shows persons and groups being thrown out of the Church by one pope and this action being apologised for by another. If the pope were really the rock he wouldn’t be able to excommunicate unfairly. The concept of invalid excommunication doesn’t solve any problems for the pope and the Church are separating themselves from some person or group. There is still a split, casting-out, separation and division even if the decree is invalid. The decree might be invalid but it is still effective. If you give John a vodka but not knowing it is a synthetic copy of vodka you have given John an invalid vodka but it still makes him drunk and has consequences. It’s real in its effects.
The Bible indicates that Jesus appointed apostles to teach his gospel and so after his resurrection he appeared to one apostle first and that was Peter (1 Cor 15:4-5, Luke 24:34). Jesus gave Peter the task of confirming the brethren in the post-resurrection faith. All this suggests that Peter being the rock means only that Peter was to be the apostle who would see Jesus first and get the task of helping the Church believe. None of that makes him anything like a pope or head of the Church.
Catholic Doctrine says, “Peter was the first
pope for Christ said he was Peter and on this rock on whom he would build his
Church and the gates of hell would never prevail against it (meaning the Church
being the last thing mentioned) (Matthew
Had Jesus meant to make Peter a pope he would have said, “You are
foundation and on this foundation I will build my Church.” Some Catholics object that Jesus calling Peter
rock would be stronger than calling him a foundation for you build the
foundation on the rock and it will stand forever. They say Peter then is the rock that the
foundation stones will be laid on (page 105, The Church and Infallibility).
This would tell you that if Jesus built the Church on Peter who as a man
was a weak and changeable one who let Jesus down then he was mad. You can’t build a Church on a man. Most popes even if they have been infallible
have not been rocks, some neglected to protect the faith by speaking out
clearly, some were too fond of the sentences of excommunication and caused
schism after schism, and others have been totally wrapped up in sex, money or
power. The Church admits that many popes
have harmed the Church. And they are
rocks! How absurd. It is no wonder that many reason that even if
Jesus said, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” that “this
rock” refers to Jesus himself. Jesus
being God or the sinless Son of God, alone could be the rock. Jesus could have been speaking
poetically. He would have assumed that
we had the commonsense to realise that “this rock” is not Peter for it couldn’t
be but Jesus himself or even the declaration of faith that Peter made that
prompted Jesus to say this. Peter had
declared, “You are the Messiah the Son of the Living God.” Some Catholics say that nowhere does the
Bible say that the rock is not the foundation.
A foundation is dug in the ground because the ground needs to be
prepared to support a building which it can’t do without a foundation. The rock can be the same as the foundation
when it is a flat rock so you can build on it with the right cement. It would be silly to try and put a foundation
in a rock like that. But we know Peter
was not a rock and no pope was a rock.
The power of the
keys illustration comes from the Bible where Jesus tells Peter he will give him
the keys of the
It is strange that
only a believer can be the rock the Church is built on in the Catholic sense
and many popes were not believers. It
tells us that there is something seriously wrong with the Catholic
interpretation.
Greek Grammar shows that Jesus said, “I give you the keys of heaven BUT
whatever you may bind on earth etc”. The
but shows that the keys did not signify the same thing as the binding. Then he said, “Whatever you bind on earth has
been or shall have been bound in Heaven and the same with what you loose” (page
11, Roman Catholicism, What is Final Authority? Harold J. Berry). The keys to Heaven may just mean that Jesus
is promising him that he will be saved for they are different from the binding
power. Notice that Peter is not given
any power to bind or loose like the pope claims but is being COMMANDED to bind
and loose what God has already bound and loosed in Heaven. There is no hint of the idea that Peter will
only bind and loose what God binds and looses which implies that to obey Peter
is not necessarily to obey God but God to obey him. Not one of the early fathers ever used this
passage to prove anything resembling papal authority (page 12, Roman
Catholicism).
It is no exaggeration to assert that Matthew 16 is the basis of the Roman
Catholic system. Yet for the first four
hundred years (which were the most important years of the Church for they were
the formation years and closer to the apostles who the Church says are the only
sources of true doctrine) the Church never used this chapter as its basis or to
justify the episcopate of Rome or the alleged infallibility of the Roman Church
(page 15, Roman Catholic Objections Answered).
Here is the part of Matthew 16 that Roman Catholicism is built on:
“Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you Simon Bar Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Revised Standard Version, Catholic Edition. From this the Church concludes that Peter was the first pope, the head of the Church and started off the succession of infallible popes with supreme powers of jurisdiction over the Church.
God revealed the truth about Jesus to Peter which was why Jesus said what he said to Peter. Jesus is saying that Peter was chosen by God not man. The idea of Peter having successors chosen by men, often disastrously if the papal reigns of Benedict IX and Alexander VI and Paul VI is anything to go by, is alien to the passage.
Peter alone is able to tell Jesus that he was the Messiah the Son of God. It seems the other apostles were
evasive. Or that they didn’t think he
was. Perhaps they did and were afraid to
say it. The first reason is the right
one for Jesus speaks later as if Peter alone had realised that he was the
Christ.
Had Jesus intended to set up the papacy with its teaching and
jurisdictional authority he would have said, “You are Light and this Light will
be the foundation of my Church.” The
teaching authority of the pope is his most important mandate. If Peter was this unique light he would
automatically have jurisdiction to spread this light. (Jesus called Christians light of the
world.) That is why the word Rock isn’t
the best word. A rock could just be the
person who does most of the work, the person who founds the Church, the first
member of the Church, the person who teaches the best, the person who is most
open to God. Jesus is the head of the
Church in Catholic doctrine and the pope is just the human head of the Church. What then if Jesus was the founder of the
Church and Peter being the first to believe and receive the real gift of faith
was then to be reckoned the human founder?
That would not make Peter a pope.
Jesus told Peter that God showed him that Jesus was the Christ. Jesus
then told him he was the rock and on this rock Jesus would build his
indestructible Church. He said he would
give him the keys of the
Also, if Peter had been made head of the Church he might only have been
an administration head making the final decisions about what the Church will do
but not claiming any special right to tell it what to believe. In this view, Protestants could regard the
pope as lawful head of the Church but who is not entitled to obedience until he
restores the true faith within the Catholic Church but they would need to show
that Peter’s office was transmissible.
It is said that what Jesus told Peter was addressed to him as an
individual and not as one of the apostles (page 5, The Petrine Claims of
Rome). But Jesus could have meant
you (Peter) are rock and on this rock (meaning the apostles) I will build my
Church. Each of them is rock so they can
be called rock individually or collectively.
Evidence for this is in the fact that Jesus didn’t say, “You are Peter
and on you I will build my Church.” The
distinction between Peter and the rock indicates a denial that Peter alone is
the rock.
The pope is the visible head of the Church which is why he is called the
Vicar of Christ, the one who stands in the place of Christ. Peter was not head of the Church at that time
or even a bishop for Jesus is the head of the Church as long as he is on earth
and yet Jesus says you are Peter and on this rock etc. Peter was called Peter before the Church was
built! So Peter does not mean rock
though the Catholic Church says it does.
Peter was not a pope from the time he was called Peter on for the Bible
contradicts the view that he had any special authority from the time Jesus
supposedly told him he was the rock he would later build on. The Catholic Church lies that Peter was to
become the rock when Jesus returned to Heaven and that Matthew 16 means he will
be the rock in future tense (page 51, Pope
Fiction). Jesus was the visible head
of the Church so Peter was not a pope. Jesus calling Peter rock did not mean
Peter was a pope.
Peter wasn’t even a priest when Jesus called him the rock for the Church
says that when Jesus told his apostles to celebrate the Eucharist in his memory
he ordained them as the first priests.
Curiously Jesus never laid hands to ordain and yet the Church today says
nobody can ordain you a priest or bishop without laying on hands which is the
essential part of the sacrament of ordination.
The early Church laid hands afterwards but never said it was essential
for ordination and the Bible never taught the need. So Peter was never a priest or a bishop and
today
However, the
Catholic Church claims that Peter was a pope for he was the Rock the Church was
built on and its boss and had the authority to bind and loose and to open and
shut the gate of Heaven.
The first person who believes is the rock the Church is built on in the
sense of being the first member and supporter.
Without a first convert there is no Church to join. Being boss has nothing to do with it. Peter then had the keys to Heaven and the
power to bind and loose for he became the Church without which Heaven cannot be
reached.
Probability tells us to take the simplest meaning and this is the least
Jesus could have meant. Reading the
papacy into all that is exaggerating.
Matthew 16 does not support the papacy.
If Peter was the rock of Catholic doctrine and the Church then to be a
rock he had to sanction everything taught by other bishops before they could teach
it for he is the rock chiefly for doctrinal reasons for the Church cannot exist
without its doctrine being intact. So in
reality and for simplicity, he should have written the sermons for them and
instead of preaching the bishops merely read them out. The Catholics make the pope the rock but they
do not really believe that he is the rock.
For example, they say they have no problem with “caretaker popes” ones
who do nothing but just fill the chair of Peter. How could such a pope be the rock in any sense? If the pope is the rock then he is the only
real bishop in the Church and the other bishops are just assistants and
puppets. Peter never did anything like
this so he was not a pope. If he was the
rock he was not the rock in the Catholic sense or anything close to it.
This tells us that it is most probable that the distinction between Peter as an individual and the Rock is there in Jesus’ words.
After Jesus said that Peter was Peter and on this rock I will build my
Church, Jesus then told the apostles that he would be put to death and rise on
the third day. Peter told him that this
must not happen and Jesus called him Satan and told him he was into man’s
thinking not God’s.
Jesus called Peter Satan. Now,
suppose Jesus really told Peter he would be the infallible ruler of the
Church. That would be a conditional
promise. It would depend on Peter being
true to God for Jesus would not appoint a tyrant. Jesus called Peter Satan and Paul said that
Peter let the Church down and promoted error.
It would not look like Peter really became the head for he consistently
let Jesus down. He was not much of a
rock. The Bible never praises Peter so
we only know bad things about him and that is what we have to depend on. We have no evidence at all that Peter
remained true and was able to become pope and Paul accused him of
apostasy. When the fulfilment of the
promise was never recorded or made clear in scripture or primitive tradition we
must be expected to believe that Peter annulled the promise and proved
unsuitable. But whatever, he was never a
pope.
Peter seems to have functioned as the chief witness of the resurrection
in the early Church. If that is so then
he could have been that kind of rock. He
was not the head of the Church and was not to have a successor as the
rock. Peter would have been the best
witness for Jesus being the Son of the Living God for he was the oldest
witness.
Jesus making Peter the pope does not mean that we are bound to follow the
pope now. If the pope is in charge of
the Church and leads it astray then if a faction could prove that he was not
doing his duty, it could elect another pope and why not? Jesus did make it clear as did the apostle
Paul that even if the apostles taught evil that they were to be forsaken. Human authority even in the name of God does
not come before God.
There is no evidence that the Bible considered Peter to be the earthly
head of the Church or that the pope is Peter’s successor even if Jesus did.
Traditionally, Protestants have dismissed papal claims because according
to the original Greek of the gospel, Jesus said, “You are Petros and on this
There is a lot of debate about the importance of the switch from petros
to
The Catholic Church admits that there is a difference in the words and
that the noun for Peter is masculine and the one for stone or rock is feminine
but says this does not matter for in the Aramiac the meaning would have been
the same for the one word Kepha would have been used (page 362, Radio
Replies, Vol 1). So they are saying
the Greek is translating the Aramaic which runs, “You are Kepha and on this
Kepha I will build my Church.” A mighty
strange away of speaking for why not say, “You are Kepha and on you I will
build my Church”? If Jesus had meant
that Peter was the rock he would build the Church on he would have said, “You
are Kepha and on you I will build my Church”.
Even the Aramaic then indicates a difference of meaning though not in
wording between man and rock.
The Greek rendering indicates a distinction between the Kepha addressed
and the Kepha he will build on. It goes
You Kepha and then This Kepha. The
translation refuses to be literal and takes account of the fact that there was
a difference between the meaning of Kepha and Kepha in the Aramaic.
Some in the Catholic Church lie that if petros meant a stone and not a
rock then the gospel would use the Greek word lithos for pebble or small rock
or stone (page 42, Pope Fiction). But the notorious defender of Catholicism
Karl Keating admits that this is untrue for petros does mean a stone while
Keating argued that Matthew translating from the Aramaic into the Greek
did the following. He translated kepha
or Cephas as Petros (Peter), which Keating admits denotes a small stone and is
of masculine gender or pebble, and kepha as
So Matthew had to change the meaning of Jesus’ words to avoid giving
Peter a female name! Lunacy! Why not
just do bad grammar and have it as you are Petros and on this Petros I will
build my Church? It is the meaning that
it is important.
So according to Keating, Matthew didn’t want to call Peter Petra and used
Petros because Petros was masculine while Petra was feminine and yet Catholics
say Jesus said on this petra meaning Peter I will build my Church. If Matthew didn’t want to insult Peter then
why did he call him the
So Matthew to avoid calling Peter female made Jesus say that Peter was a
masculine noun and on this feminine noun rock or
Keating argued that Peter must be the rock for you don’t say you are
Peter and on this rock I will build my Church meaning something or someone else by the
rock (page 208, Catholicism and Fundamentalism). Then there would be no point in addressing
Peter. If you say, “I have a dog and a
cat and it is dead,” the nearest noun to dead is the one that is meant to be
dead. It doesn’t mean that the dog and
the cat are the same being.
Keating lies because he knows fine well that Simon was called Peter
BEFORE the event in Matthew 16. He was
called Peter in Matthew 10:2,
In John 1:42 Jesus called Simon Cephas or stone which is Peter in the
Greek language. There Jesus tells him he
is Simon son of John and that he will be known as Peter. He does it without any hint that Peter had
the faith to be the rock that the Church was built on. There is no hint that Simon Peter was to be
the pope. This was long before the scene
of Matthew 16 or before Peter had had any real faith in Jesus. This tells us the title does not make Peter
head of the Church. And how could he be
Peter when Jesus was still on earth if Peter denoted his being head of the
Church? All agree that Jesus was the
head and not Peter when Jesus was alive.
Peter was the first member of the
The gospel that says you are Peter etc was written in Greek
originally. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Catholics say that there is no different word
for small stone and large rock in the Aramaic Jesus spoke, so Jesus did tell
Peter that he was the rock and that the Church would be founded on this
rock. That is nonsense for Jesus must
have stated or indicated – by tone of voice perhaps – that there was a
difference when the original Greek gospel makes one. Even the Vulgate, the official Latin Catholic
Bible, does not equate Peter with the rock.
There is no reason for Jesus to use the rock word twice but to say it in
such a way that there was a distinction.
In the Greek then this distinction was put into translation by using two
different words. The original version of
the gospel is what counts. But whatever,
if Jesus meant two separate rocks or if he meant Peter was a stone and what he
was building on was a rock there was a distinction that the Greek is trying to
get across. Jesus calling Peter Kephas
in John 1:42 the first time he met him only proves that he called him Kephas
but not that it had anything to do with Matthew 16. Giving Peter a name doesn’t mean that Matthew
16 with its play on words and poetry makes Peter the rock in the Catholic
sense.
Even if Jesus had said “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my
Church” meaning the rock was Peter then it is clearly believing Peter who was
the rock. In strictly accurate language
it would really be Peter’s faith that the rock is. You may say in ordinary language that your
counsellor is your rock but the truth is it is her power of insight that is the
rock. Its her quality and not her. Its indirectly her yes but that’s all and
that is why you would call her your rock.
The Catholic Church takes what it thinks Jesus said far too literally.
Karl Keating surmises that since Peter was told by Jesus in Matthew 16
about the rock near Caesarea Philippi which was built in honour of Caesar
Augustus the ruler of
Jesus was overjoyed and surprised when Peter told him there that he
believed Jesus was the Son of God. Does
that sound like Jesus planned it all, that he wanted to go to Caesarea Philippi
to ordain the first pope?
Pope Fiction repeats the same lame argument as Keating (page 40). But the book tells us that there is a massive
rock there overlooking the ruins. What
if Jesus and the apostles were standing on that rock and Jesus was saying, “You
are rock and on this rock I will build my Church”? It would mean that Jesus was saying that
Peter was his first rock with which to build his Church and the Church will be
built literally on the rock they were standing on. The Church was founded on the rock with
Peter’s profession of Christianity making him the first Christian.
Jesus might not have used the word Church in Matthew 16 in the Catholic
sense of the people of God. The word had
other senses. Church translates the word
ecclesia which means called out. God
calls all into a community of believers.
He wants all to believe even if they will not become his people in their
hearts. So you can have the community of
believers and another or distinct community of the people of God which is
different and known only to God for God can see who is a hypocrite and who
isn’t. Peter could have been the rock of
the community of believers without being the rock of the people of God or the
true Church.
Since the heresies of Vatican II, some Catholics realising that the
leaders of the Church were trying to create a new religion masquerading as
Catholicism, the theory that a pope can be pope materially or formally has
appeared. Recognising that some popes,
Liberius, Honorius, John XXII were heretics and some didn’t do their job at all
the idea is that these popes at least at times were only popes in name
only. If I become pope and do nothing at
all then I am pope in name only. I am
head of the Church but not acting it. So
I am a material pope. A formal pope is a
pope who tries to do his job as best as he can.
A material pope has no right to obedience for he is sinful and dangerous
and may teach heresy. Most Catholics
prefer to pretend that God wouldn’t choose a useless pope but when he let the
Church split into three at the climax of the Western Schism when there were
three men claiming to be pope and all presenting plausible evidence that they
were pope so that nobody knew who the real pope was he might. Many Traditional Catholics believe that the
current pope is the successor of Peter but has only potential authority not
actual authority for he is so heretical and stubborn that he is not entitled to
obedience so they obey his predecessors instead and have their Churches run
according to their rules. Undeniably,
even if Jesus did found the papacy it does not follow that he wants the papacy
obeyed or promises that it will be useful.
A Protestant can believe that Peter was the first pope and the pope is
the head of the Church and still refuse to obey the pope and call him antichrist. The Jewish High Priest was the head of the
Jewish religion and the successor of Aaron who God made the first high priest
or head priest yet the Bible sometimes advised rebellion against him. Jesus for example gave no obedience to Annas
or Caiaphas. The Bible says that God
chose Aaron as High Priest though Aaron once led the people to adore the golden
calf instead of God. Those Catholics say
that the pope exists for the Church and not the Church for the pope so if the
pope teaches heresy he has to be defied and corrected except in so far as he is
right.
Have we much evidence that people in the early Church interpreted “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church” from Matthew 16 to make Peter a Catholic style pope?
The fact that Mark has a similar story to Matthew and nothing about the
rock stuff suggests that Peter was not the head of the Church. You don’t omit stories like that. Plus Mark does all he can to portray Peter in a bad
light - proving that the early Church claim that the gospel was based on Peter's
teachings and reminiscences is false and that he didn't respect Peter. He
certainly did not think Peter was anything like a pope! Luke wrote after Matthew and didn’t put in
the rock material either. Nobody would
repeat what others say and then leave out something so important – unless it
wasn’t important. If it wasn’t important
then Jesus did not make Peter a pope and the succeeding popes the head of the
Church.
If the gospel of Mark came from Peter’s preaching as most Catholics
believe then when the episode is in it but without the exaltation of Peter then
this is a serious reason for asking if the words Matthew reported, “Thou art
Peter etc” were said at all. It wouldn’t
make any sense for Mark to leave that out if he was a disciple of Peter and it
was true.
The disciples disputed among themselves about which of them was the
greatest or the leader some time after Jesus called Simon Peter and referred to
the rock he would build his Church on proving that they knew Jesus did not make
Peter head of the Church or was not planning on it either. In Luke, this dispute started after the
last supper long after the Thou art Peter incident (22:24). Jesus replies that instead of a having a
ruler among them the one that wants to be the greatest should do the most
serving and act like the youngest and needing the most advice from the others. He meant that they should all strive for that
– no one in particular. There was to be
no infallible pope or papal monarch. If
you wanted to be the rock the church was built on you had to lay such notions
aside and become it by your serving of others and humility not by papal
election. You were to draw no attention
to yourself by advertising your goodness but were to work in humility. If Peter had been the rock, the way is now
open for a new one among the disciples.
It would be the one who seemed to be the least and the one who wanted
his virtue seen only by God not man. He
was to be an invisible rock.
The Epistle of James which demands that everybody be treated as equals at
meetings whether they are rich or poor indicates that there were to be no popes
in the early Church. If the pope came to
a meeting he would be given a comfortable chair even if it meant the poor person
has to sit on the floor. That is the
very thing that James condemns severely (2:1-4).
If Peter had really been pope and the rock in the Catholic sense would Paul have publicly made a show of him and urged dissent from him in Galatians 2:11-14? The procedure with popes and kings is to have a word with them and try to win them over by peace and in private rather than just leap in and attack them. And especially when they are guilty of obvious stupidity - it is hard to believe that the Church would have taken what Peter did that seriously. Paul did not regard Peter as the focus of unity in the Church when he engineered a revolt against him. Catholics say that Peter did not err in doctrine but he did for the Jewish practice of not eating with Gentiles which Peter supported was a doctrinal issue and the pope teaches by action as much as by speech. If Pope Benedict XVI would never teach any heresy in speech but nods approvingly when some heretic speaks would that mean Benedict was not teaching heresy just because he didn’t open his mouth? So Paul opposed Peter in doctrine. Paul wrote that he saw that Peter was not being straight with the gospel (implying Peter spoke for heresy) and he told Peter in front of everybody that Peter was compelling Gentiles to live like Jews. Clearly then Peter was teaching heresy by speaking up for it and compelling people to become heretics.
Catholics argue that Paul wouldn't have mentioned the episode unless Peter was his superior and he was reprimanding him. They turn it into a proof that Peter was a pope or near-pope. But Paul said a few other things about Peter. And there is no hint anywhere in Paul's writings that he regarded Peter anything other than as an equal.
The Book of
Revelation symbolises the apostles being the foundation of the Church as a
whole by saying that there will be twelve foundations for the city of the saved
and each foundation has the name of an apostle on it. If rock means foundation then there are
twelve foundations and Peter was the first rock but not the superior one. Jesus made the others rocks later. Or you could say there is one rock if you
group all the apostles together.
Revelation means that they are the rocks by their testimony. Christ was the rock in the supreme sense and
in the sense that he makes the Church and unites it. Jesus never indicated that if Peter was the
rock he was to be the only rock!
Jesus said he would give the keys of the
The fathers who did believe Peter was the rock did not all make it clear
that they thought Peter was the head and boss of the Church. Any that did, gave no evidence that they had
researched their statements thoroughly so they have no weight (page 51, St
Peter and Rome).
Seventeen early Fathers, including Jerome and Augustine and Origen
declared that Peter was the rock which we must remember is still not enough to
prove that they believed in the papacy and if they had then they would have
excommunicated those other fathers who denied the papacy. Later in life, Jerome stated clearly that the
bishop of
The Peter thing is the bedrock of Catholicism and its strange doctrines
and practices for they try to prove it to prove that the teaching authority of
the Church is divine and legitimate. The
Church does not have good enough evidence for such a serious claim. If the Peter rock theory is wrong then
Protestantism is the only alternative.
Jesus, as the Mormon Church has pointed out, says nothing at all about the Church built on the rock as being a Church on earth. The Mormons believe that Jesus when he said that the gates of Hell would never overcome his Church meant that even if the Church ceased to exist on earth it would exist in Heaven. Catholics assume that Jesus meant the Church would always exist on earth and be built on the rock of Peter and the papacy. Mormons say that Jesus spoke of the gates of Hell fighting his Church which means he was thinking primarily of the Church in the spirit world for Hell was part of the Spirit world. They say that Satan need not necessarily approve of every human effort to destroy the Church. They say there is no need to believe he is behind all such activity. They say Jesus mentioned only Hell fighting the Church and not people which implies he was not primarily thinking of the Church on earth. If so, then Peter was not the earthly rock that the Church was built on. Jesus talks about giving Peter the keys of the kingdom of Heaven - again seemingly thinking of the spirit world. The idea of Peter being pope in the spirit world is ridiculous.
If Peter was the head of the Church that means he was head apostle. An apostle was a missionary who saw the risen Jesus and Jesus supposedly appointed twelve official ones. Only a person who lived in the world at the time of Jesus and witnessed his miracles and his goodness could be an apostle. The Pope cannot be Peter’s successor for the Pope is not an apostle.
Conclusion
All the evidence is for the Catholic understanding of You are Peter and on this Rock I will build my Church as being a fraud. That the Church uses the verse to prove the papacy was created by Christ though it has been refuted time and time again speaks volumes.
24 November 2007
BOOKS CONSULTED
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS CATHOLICS ARE ASKING, Tony Coffey, Harvest House
Publishers, Oregon ,2006
A CONCISE HISTORY OF THE
A HANDBOOK ON THE PAPACY, William Shaw Kerr, Marshall Morgan & Scott,
A WOMAN RIDES THE BEAST, Dave Hunt Harvest House Eugene Oregon 1994
ALL ONE BODY – WHY DON’T WE AGREE?
Erwin W Lutzer,
ANTICHRIST IS HE HERE OR IS HE TO COME?
Protestant Truth Society,
APOLOGIA PRO VITA SUA, John Henry Newman (Cardinal), Everyman’s Library,
BELIEVING IN GOD, PJ McGrath,
BURNING TRUTHS, Basil Morahan, Western People Printing, Ballina,
1993
CATHOLICISM AND CHRISTIANITY, Cecil John Cadoux, George Allen & Unwin
Ltd, 1928
CATHOLICISM AND FUNDAMENTALISM, Karl Keating, Ignatius Press,
DAWN OR TWILIGHT? HM Carson, IVP, Leicester, 1976
DIFFICULTIES, Mgr Ronald Knox and Sir Arnold Lunn, Eyre &
Spottiswoode,
ENCOUNTERS OF THE FOURTH KIND, Dr RJ Hymers, Bible Voice, Inc,
FROM
FUTURIST OR HISTORICIST? Basil C Mowll, Protestant Truth Society,
GOD’S WORD, FINAL, INFALLIBLE AND FOREVER,
Floyd McElveen, Gospel Truth Ministries, Grand Rapids, MI, 1985
HANDBOOK TO THE CONTROVERSY WITH
HANS KUNG HIS WORK AND HIS WAY, Hermann Haring and Karl-Josef Kuschel,
Fount-Collins,
HITLER’S POPE, THE SECRET HISTORY OF PIUS XII, John Cornwell, Viking,
HOW SURE ARE THE FOUNDATIONS?
Colin Badger, Wayside
HOW DOES GOD LOVE ME? Martin R De Haan II, Radio Bible Class,
INFALLIBILITY IN THE CHURCH, Patrick Crowley, CTS,
INFALLIBLE? Hans Kung, Collins,
IS THE PAPACY PREDICTED BY
LECTURES AND REPLIES, Thomas Carr, Archbishop of Melbourne,
NO LIONS IN THE HIERARCHY, Fr Joseph Dunn, Columba Press,
PAPAL SIN, STRUCTURES OF DECEIT, Garry Wills, Darton Longman and Todd, London, 2000
PETER AND THE OTHERS, Rev FH Kinch MA, Nelson & Knox Ltd,
POPE FICTION, Patrick Madrid, Basilica Press,
PUTTING AWAY CHILDISH THINGS, Uta Ranke-Heinemann, HarperCollins,
REASON AND BELIEF, Brand Blanschard, George Allen & Unwin Ltd,
REASONS FOR HOPE, Editor Jeffrey A Mirus,
ROMAN CATHOLIC CLAIMS, Charles Gore MA, Longmans,
ROMAN CATHOLIC OBJECTIONS ANSWERED, Rev H O Lindsay, John T Drought Ltd,
ROMAN CATHOLICISM,
SECRETS OF ROMANISM, Joseph Zacchello, Loizeaux Brothers,
ST PETER AND
THE CHURCH AND INFALLIBILITY, B C Butler, The Catholic Book Club,
THE EARLY CHURCH, Henry Chadwick, Pelican, Middlesex, 1987
THE HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY, LION BOOKS, Herts, 1977
THE LATE GREAT PLANET EARTH, Hal Lindsay,
THE PAPACY IN PROPHECY!
Christadelphian Press,
THE PAPACY ITS HISTORY AND DOGMAS, Leopold D E Smith, Protestant Truth
Society,
THE PETRINE CLAIMS OF ROME, Canon JE Oulton DD, John T Drought Ltd,
THE PRIMITIVE FAITH AND ROMAN CATHOLIC DEVELOPMENTS, Rev John A Gregg,
BD, APCK,
THE SHE-POPE, Peter Stanford, William Hienemann, Random House,
THE VATICAN PAPERS, Nino Lo
TRADITIONAL DOCTRINES OF THE
VICARS OF CHRIST, Peter de Rosa, Corgi,
WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE? J
Bredin, Evangelical Protestant Society,
WHATEVER HAPPENED TO HEAVEN?, Dave Hunt, Harvest House,