Peter the Rock?

[Brakelite]

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.

Matt. 16:13 – also, from a geographical perspective, Jesus renames Simon to rock in Caesarea Philippi near a massive rock formation on which Herod built a temple to Caesar. Jesus chose this setting to further emphasize that Peter was indeed the rock on which the Church would be built.

"I kept suggesting that you do a study of the geography,"
Keep suggesting.

Or a pebble on the beach by Peter's fishing boat.

 

[Brakelite]

The Catholic doctrine of the papacy is biblically based, and is derived from the evident primacy of St. Peter among the apostles. Like all Christian doctrines, it has undergone development through the centuries, but it hasn’t departed from the essential components already existing in the leadership and prerogatives of St. Peter. These were given to him by our Lord Jesus Christ, acknowledged by his contemporaries, and accepted by the early Church. The biblical Petrine data is quite strong and convincing, by virtue of its cumulative weight, especially for those who are not hostile to the notion of the papacy from the outset.

Unless it isn't. The papacy by it's very nature, is a union of church and state. This union didn't exist prior to the 4th and 5th centuries. This union did not exist at the time of Christ or the apostles, therefore was a concept and arrangement designed to empower man to rule over others by force and compel them to obey by law. This was something Christ did not, nor could ever condone. The Papacy is therefore an illegitimate usurper of the authority and rightful prerogatives of Christ.

 

[Brakelite]

Lol....I have no "plan" here marks. It's a simple question in an effort to find out what men are your teachers. You already know who my men are.

It is now clear to me that no man is your teacher. YOU (a man) are your teacher. It is now clear that you have not found The Church that Christ started with Him being the cornerstone and foundation. The Church that was built upon by the Apostles. You are, as they say, a lone wolf Christian.

Looks like a plan to me.

 

[Brakelite]

WHO decides when Scripture has been "misused'?

God. And not one of your church fathers will be standing next to you holding your hand when you answer to Him.

 

[Brakelite]

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.
Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, “[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2).

1. In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation,
2. Timothy’s generation,
3. and the generation Timothy will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes,

“[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it” (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).​

​

For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . .

[A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).​

Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of apostolic succession:

Pope Clement I (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).​

Hegesippus (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).​

Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).​

Tertullian (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).​

Cyprian of Carthage (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).​

Augustine (Against the Letter of Mani Called “The Foundation” 4:5 [A.D. 397]).​

What the Early Church Believed: Apostolic Succession

How did the early Christians determine which was the true Church? The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

www.catholic.com

That would be all well and good if that Catholic line to the Apostles was the only line. But you and I know that it wasn't don't we. The Christian faith spread across Asia, Africa, and Europe, and Rome was just one of many equally young struggling local communities like any other, except for the intensity of persecution. The beginning of that spread was not Rome. It was first Jerusalem. Then it was Antioch, Pella, and the churches of Asia minor, with Thomas going to India, and the gospel spreading across southern Europe from Galatians through the Celtic peoples who populated the northern areas of Italy like Milan and Turin, southern France, and Britain, by-passing Rome. And the gospel flourished in the other direction also, going into Assyria, Afghanistan, and by the 8th century all the way into China, Japan, Vietnam and the Philippines, all without the aid of one emissary or missionary from Rome, and without any connection or submission to Roman papal authority. Rome, without the advocacy of the emperors such as Constantine and particularly Justinian, was just another church. Rome wasn't granted it's status by Jesus, Peter, but by kings and generals who fought wars on her behalf, such as Clovis, and Belisarius. Apostolic succession and the primacy of the bishop of Rome was not instituted by Jesus, but through war and political compulsion.

 

[Taken]

I can't quite bring myself to agree. Jesus likely told his disciples a thousand more things than are recorded in the four canonical gospels. Are you suggesting that Paul knew every one of them?

If you have concluded, the Disciples appointed by Jesus, Heard and Learned from Jesus approximately THREE years…

Remembering the account of Saul / Paul’s intent to Travel to Damascus and what transpired.

Acts 9: (regarding Saul’s experience)
3: a bright Light
4: A voice speaking to Saul
5: Saul calls out TO…the Lord Jesus
6: Saul responds…what shall the Lord have Saul DO…and Saul’s Willingness to DO.
17: Saul filled with the Holy Ghost.

Turning to the Testimony of Saul / Paul.
Gal 1:
[11] But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
[12] For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
[13] For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
[14] And profited in the Jews' religion above many my equals in mine own nation, being more exceedingly zealous of the traditions of my fathers.
[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Is it reasonable to believe the twelve JEWISH Disciples Jesus Chose were with Jesus, hearing and learning from Jesus for (THREE years)….(Their mission to teach Jews / Tribes of Israel the Gospel of Jesus Christ.)
AND
Saul / Paul was hearing and learning from the Spirit of God in Arabia for (THREE years)…(his mission to teach Jews / Tribes of Israel, Gentiles / Kings the Gospel of Jesus Christ)
THAT
they all were taught the same within THREE years?

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[Tulipbee]

Peter didn’t exalt himself. JESUS did.

Now THIS a perfect example of why you have NO grasp of Scripture.

Peter was specifically commanded by Jesus to pastor His flock. In the Great Commission (Matt. 28:19-20) - ALL of them were dispatched to teach and Baptize – NOT specifically to pastor His sheep.

WRONG.

This wasn’t a general prayer for the good of the entire Church. It was a very specific prayer for a very specific person for a very specific situation.

Ummmmm, this is because Peter didn’t exalt himself. Jesus warned against this (Matt. 23:8-12).

There’s no “alphabetical chaos” here – unless YOU think that the Gospel contains errors. Peter is named first in every list because of his preeminence - and NOT because the Gospel writers screwed up.

I never said it wasn’t Apostolic teamwork.

I said that Peter was in charge – for which YOU had no answer.

Paul’s rebuke of Peter has absolutely NOTJING to do with Peter’s role as leader. He rebuked him for his bad behavior – NOT because of his doctrinal teaching.

Absolutely.
However, “necromancy” is NOT about raising the dead. It is about seeking oracles from the dead – trying to glean information from them.

Do your homework . . .

First of all – I never said that Cornelius’s instruction from the Angel to seek out Peter was anything BUT divine instruction. He was sent to Peter because he was in charge.

Secondly - I never used that term – YOU did.

Ummmm – YOU wouldn’t even know where to start . . .

Ah, BreadOfLife, in this divine comedy of theological banter, let us continue our dance through the sacred texts. Now, let me shine a Calvinistic light on the perceived errors of the papal system:

1. Exclusive Papal Authority:
   • The Calvinist lens suggests a shared responsibility among elders rather than a singular hierarchical authority. The New Testament portrays a collective leadership model, with elders and apostles working together, challenging the notion of exclusive papal authority.
2. Sola Scriptura:
   • Calvinism emphasizes the principle of sola scriptura – Scripture alone as the ultimate authority. The perceived reliance on tradition within the papal system may be seen as a departure from this foundational Calvinist principle.
3. Priesthood of Believers:
   • Calvinism highlights the priesthood of all believers, with no need for an intermediary figure. The concept of confessing sins to a priest might be viewed as contradicting the Calvinist emphasis on direct access to God through Christ.
4. Divine Election:
   • Calvinism underscores the doctrine of divine election, where God unconditionally chooses those who will be saved. The papal system's emphasis on works and merit might be seen as a departure from this Calvinist understanding of salvation.
5. Scriptural Interpretation:
   • The Calvinist tradition places a strong emphasis on careful and rigorous biblical interpretation. Perceived instances of non-biblical doctrines within the papal system might be viewed as straying from this commitment to a scripturally grounded faith.

In the spirit of theological banter, let us explore these perspectives with open hearts, seeking a deeper understanding of the profound truths within our shared journey of faith.

 

[Tulipbee]

Jesus isn’t the only “Rock” in Scripture . . .

In Isa. 51:1-2, Abraham is referred to as the “Rock”. That doesn’t nullify Jesus’s title as the “Rock“ or “Cornerstone” – nor does Peter’s title of “Rock” nullify this.

Ah, BreadOfLife, let us wade into the theological waters and explore the grave errors, as perceived in the Calvinist view, of the papal system's insistence on Peter as the exclusive "Rock."

1. Singular Authority vs. Collective Leadership:
   • Calvinism advocates for a shared leadership model among elders, avoiding the concentration of authority in one individual. The papal system's insistence on Peter as the exclusive "Rock" may be seen as deviating from the New Testament's portrayal of collective leadership among elders and apostles.
2. Sola Scriptura and Papal Tradition:
   • The Calvinist principle of sola scriptura emphasizes the Bible as the ultimate authority. The papal system, with its reliance on tradition and the Magisterium, may be viewed as departing from this foundational Calvinist doctrine, potentially introducing doctrines not explicitly grounded in Scripture.
3. Priesthood of All Believers:
   • Calvinism accentuates the priesthood of all believers, diminishing the need for an intermediary between individuals and God. The papal system's introduction of a hierarchical priesthood and the sacrament of confession may be seen as contradicting this Calvinist emphasis on direct access to God through Christ.
4. Salvation by Grace vs. Works:
   • Calvinism underscores salvation by grace through divine election, irrespective of human merit. The papal system's inclusion of works, indulgences, and the concept of merit might be viewed as deviating from the Calvinist understanding of salvation.
5. Scriptural Interpretation and Papal Infallibility:
   • Calvinism places a strong emphasis on careful and rigorous biblical interpretation. The concept of papal infallibility, as defined by the Catholic Church, may be seen as challenging the Calvinist commitment to a fallible human interpretation of Scripture.

In the spirit of respectful theological dialogue, let us explore these perspectives, recognizing that our shared journey of faith holds different lenses through which we perceive the profound truths of Scripture.

 

[RedFan]

Then you would be taking the authority of the church fathers over the authority of scripture.

No, I would be weighing their interpretations of an ambiguous Scripture verse to see what light it may shed on how to resolve the ambiguity.

 

[Cassandra]

No, I would be weighing their interpretations of an ambiguous Scripture verse to see what light it may shed on how to resolve the ambiguity.

Redfan, if you had occasion to disagree with the church fathers, would you say so? and if in this instance, perhaps others?

 

[RedFan]

Redfan, if you had occasion to disagree with the church fathers, would you say so? and if in this instance, perhaps others?

The Church fathers are not always unanimous. They disagree among each other on some points. So it would be impossible for me to accept all Church Father pronouncements.

Leaving that point aside, YES, if there were a unanimous interpretation of the Church Fathers on how to construe an ambiguous Scripture passage, I might still reject their collective view if my resolution of the ambiguity made more sense to me. But I'd say that would be an unusual circumstance..

 

[RedFan]

[15] But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me by his grace,
[16] To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:
[17] Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.
[18] Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days.

Is it reasonable to believe the twelve JEWISH Disciples Jesus Chose were with Jesus, hearing and learning from Jesus for (THREE years)….(Their mission to teach Jews / Tribes of Israel the Gospel of Jesus Christ.)
AND
Saul / Paul was hearing and learning from the Spirit of God in Arabia for (THREE years)…(his mission to teach Jews / Tribes of Israel, Gentiles / Kings the Gospel of Jesus Christ)
THAT
they all were taught the same within THREE years?

Glory to God,
Taken

Methinks you put too much emphasis on the three year periods, my friend.

First, we do not really know the length of Jesus' ministry with his apostles. Here is a pretty good canvassing of the reasons we do not: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/473674

Second, the apostles would have ate, slept, traveled about with Jesus for the years they were with him, heard him speaking to others as well as to themselves, and also just went about their lives. Not every waking minute was a teaching moment. Far from it. So we cannot assume that in Paul's case the exact same (small) percentage of time in the relevant period (three years in Paul's case) was used for teaching moments.

Third, on average in the languages I am familiar with (Aramaic isn't one of them), the number of words spoken in a minute in normal cadence is about 220-240. If that is the range applicable here, are we to assume that Paul received his instruction audibly, at like cadence, from the Holy Spirit? Is that how the Holy Spirit imparted to Paul what teachings got imparted? I have no reason to assume that Paul's desert years were spent listening to a voice form heaven speaking at normal cadence for the same (small) portion of each day that Jesus spoke to or in front of his apostles.

 

[ScottA]

Most non-Catholics don’t understand 1 Tim. 2:5 because of their rebellious nature.

The “ONE Mediator” description of Jesus points to the fact that only HIS sacrifice can bring peace between the Father and us. HOWEVER – this does NOT mean that there are NO other mediators. The Bible gives us examples of this.

1 Cor. 12:12-27 tells us that we are ALL parts of the Body of Christ and in need of each other.
We are told to pray for each other (James 5:16, 1 John 5:16).
We are told in 1 Pet. 2:9 that we are a “royal PRIESTHOOD”. Intercession and mediation is the very definition of priesthood.

Finally – Paul tells his readers -
Col. 1:24
Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.

Uniting our sufferings with those of Christ is what mediation is all about . . .

That's all very nice, but those words that refer to the service of the various members of the body--even doing their service "in Christ" by "the power of God", does not make void the passage that there is but "One Mediator." So, no, you don't have to blame "non-Catholics" for not understanding.

However, it is not inaccurate to blame Catholics for their wrongful assumptions of hierarchy within the body of Christ...as if we are not all equally and biblically stated as "clay." And unless you intend to assume to be the fulfilment of the great image of Nebuchadnezzar's dream with feet of iron and clay--it is not advisable to continue in a message of such hierarchy. "For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

 

[Taken]

Methinks you put too much emphasis on the three year periods, my friend.

First, we do not really know the length of Jesus' ministry with his apostles. Here is a pretty good canvassing of the reasons we do not: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/473674

Second, the apostles would have ate, slept, traveled about with Jesus for the years they were with him, heard him speaking to others as well as to themselves, and also just went about their lives. Not every waking minute was a teaching moment. Far from it. So we cannot assume that in Paul's case the exact same (small) percentage of time in the relevant period (three years in Paul's case) was used for teaching moments.

Third, on average in the languages I am familiar with (Aramaic isn't one of them), the number of words spoken in a minute in normal cadence is about 220-240. If that is the range applicable here, are we to assume that Paul received his instruction audibly, at like cadence, from the Holy Spirit? Is that how the Holy Spirit imparted to Paul what teachings got imparted? I have no reason to assume that Paul's desert years were spent listening to a voice form heaven speaking at normal cadence for the same (small) portion of each day that Jesus spoke to or in front of his apostles.

Jesus’ chosen Disciples “with” Him were taught by Orally Hearing the Word (Jesus) of God, and thereafter Gifted the Power (Spirit /Christ of God).

Paul chosen of Jesus’ was Gifted the Power (Spirit / Christ of God), and taught spiritually the Truth of God.

Pretty sure Christ Jesus was confident they were all prepared with knowledge, understanding and to serve the Lord God, according to His Will.

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[RedFan]

Jesus’ chosen Disciples “with” Him were taught by Orally Hearing the Word (Jesus) of God, and thereafter Gifted the Power (Spirit /Christ of God).

Paul chosen of Jesus’ was Gifted the Power (Spirit / Christ of God), and taught spiritually the Truth of God.

Pretty sure Christ Jesus was confident they were all prepared with knowledge, understanding and to serve the Lord God, according to His Will.

Glory to God,
Taken

I agree. But that does not guarantee that Paul was imparted with EACH AND EVERY TEACHING that the Apostles were given.

 

[Taken]

I agree. But that does not guarantee that Paul was imparted with EACH AND EVERY TEACHING that the Apostles were given.

Saul was expert in OT Law and the NT is A Revealing of Mysteries and Knowledge not before known AND the Highlight of Salvation BEFORE Physical Death AND an Avenue to Gods Understanding of Gods own Word.

I doubt, the Converted Faithful, be they the 12 or Paul are without what each needs to know to be pleasing unto the Lord God. :-)

Glory to God,
Taken

 

[BreadOfLife]

The specific words that are key to understanding this are "Peter" and "rock," for they are both derivatives of the same word meaning rock. But the word translated to "Peter" in the verse above (and below) is petros, and the word translated to "rock" is petra. Also, the word "rock" below has the definite article in the Greek (although it is not seen in the English language translation), whereas the word "Peter" (although capitalized in the English translation) does not have the definite article. (Illustration to follow.)

But simply stated, a petros is a small rock; while petra is a large rock, even a solid foundation of stone.



Below is a copy of the original Greek words of the key part of the verse. Notice the definite article (tee-Grk. word #3588) preceding "rock":

Also, the word "and" (between "Peter" and "upon") in the above illustration is kai in the Greek and can also be translated to the word "but" in the English. This of course changes the way that this verse is commonly understood. Observe:

But to give you a sense of the meaning of the word petra ("rock"), there is a city carved out of the side of a mountain, located in modern day Jordan, which is called Petra. "Peter" (petros) was a movable stone, a smaller piece; petra(translated "rock") was a solid foundation; and incidentally, that Rock was Christ:

But anyway, (Matt 16:18), we see in five short verses later that Jesus directs a rebuke at Peter:

PS: Bullinger in his footnotes to the Companion Bible, on page 1345, will bear out what I have just said on this matter.

Protestant Scholars on Matt. 16:16-19

1. There is no distinction between "petros" and "petra."
"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period." --Craig S. Keener,The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

"Although it is true that petros and petra can mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broke off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed." --John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355.

"I grant that in Greek Peter (Petros) and stone (petra) mean the same thing, save that the first word is Attic [from the ancient classical Greek dialect of the Attica region], the second from the common tongue." --John Calvin, Calvin's New Testament Commentaries: The Harmony of the Gospels Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2, trans. T. H. L. Parker, ed. David W. Torrance and Thomas F. Torrance, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 188.

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and Petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words."--Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed., Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

2. Two different Greek words are used because you can't use a feminine noun for a man's name.
"The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name." --Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, and Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.

"When using both the masculine and feminine forms of the word, however, Matthew is not trying to distance Peter, Petros, from 'this rock,' petra. Rather, the evangelist changes the genders simply because Simon, a male, is given a masculine form of the feminine noun for his new name." --James B. Shelton, letter to the authors, 21 October 1994, 1, in Scott Butler, Norman Dehlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship, 1996), 23.

 

[BreadOfLife]

continued . . .

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The name Peter (not now first given, but prophetically bestowed by our Lord on his first interview with Simon (John 1:42), or Cephas, signifying a rock, the termination being only altered from petra to petros to suit the masculine appellation, denotes the personal position of this Apostle in the building of the Church of Christ." --Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1983), 119.

"The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros." --Herman N. Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), 303.

"The feminine word for rock, petra, is necessarily changed to the masculine petros (stone) to give a man's name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form kepha would occur in both places)." --R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985), 254.

3. "This rock" refers to Peter
"Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view." --William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which--in accordance with the words of the text--applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic Exegesis." --Gerhard Maier, "The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate," trans. Harold H. P. Dressler, in D. A. Carson, ed., Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"By the words 'this rock' Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter's confession, but Peter himself." --J. Knox Chamblin, "Matthew," in Walter A. Eldwell, ed., Evangelical Commentary on the Bible (Grand Rapids: MI: Baker, 1989), 742.

". . . If, then, Mt. 16:18 forces us to assume a formal and material identity between petra and Petros, this shows how fully the apostolate, and in it to a special degree the position of Peter, belongs to and is essentially enclosed within, the revelation of Christ. Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession." --Gerhard Friedrich, ed., and Geoffrey W. Bromley, trans. and ed.,Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. VI, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1968), 98-99.

"The expression 'this rock' almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in vs. 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." --Craig L. Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.

"The foundation of the messianic community will be Peter, the rock, who is recipient of the revelation and maker of the confession (cf. Eph 2:20). The significant leadership role of Peter is a matter of sober history . . . . [T]he plain sense of the whole statement of Jesus would seem to accord best with the view that the rock on which Jesus builds His Church is Peter." --William E. McCumber, "Matthew," in William M. Greathouse and Willard H. Taylor, eds.,Beacon Bible Expositions, vol. 1, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1975),

 

[Philip James]

Which is quite different than the position assumed by the Catholic church.

And there you go,

662 "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."541 The lifting up of Jesus on the cross signifies and announces his lifting up by his Ascension into heaven, and indeed begins it. Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."542 There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him".543 As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.544

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Pax et Bonum

 

[ScottA]

And there you go, lying again,,

662 "and I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself."541 The lifting up of Jesus on the cross signifies and announces his lifting up by his Ascension into heaven, and indeed begins it. Jesus Christ, the one priest of the new and eternal Covenant, "entered, not into a sanctuary made by human hands. . . but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf."542 There Christ permanently exercises his priesthood, for he "always lives to make intercession" for "those who draw near to God through him".543 As "high priest of the good things to come" he is the centre and the principal actor of the liturgy that honours the Father in heaven.544

Catechism of the Catholic Church - IntraText

Pax et Bonum

God knows.

But those are the teachings of men, and there you go showing your fruit and calling names again.