Does the Church exist to worship man or to worship God? If it is the former, then the Church should conform to the whims of those on the near side of the altar. If it is the latter, then the Church should conform to the commands of the Main Attraction on the far side of the altar. God answers this question in the First Commandment, obliging humanity to worship Him. To this, the "progressive" Catholic cries, "Worship me!"

Narcissistic Catholics want a Church that affirms rather than corrects their sins. This is why the elevation of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger to the papacy has been met with such vitriol by "progressive" Catholics. Pope Benedict XVI sees himself as a steward of an old Church, not the inventor of a new one. To make the alterations demanded of him by reformist Catholics, the pope would reveal himself not only as a usurper, but a usurper of a power belonging to no man.

Times have changed. God hasn't. Has God "evolved" in his views on morality? Are the Ten Commandments passe? Did He recognize the error of his teachings on adultery, homosexuality, and abortion when confronted with the example of modernity? To answer in the affirmative is to deny God as God. If God no longer calls the shots, then man does. An earthly puppeteer pulling God's strings leads to an unjust God, forever negotiating right and wrong to fit the fashions of the times. Instead of bringing humanity nearer to God, the reformist vision seeks for God to slump toward humanity.

"Upon this rock," Jesus said of St. Peter, "I shall build my Church." Many liberal Catholics hoped that Peter's 264th successor would resemble less a rock than an amoeba: soft, spineless, and malleable. And that is a sound foundation to build no church, which is perhaps their point.

Even in my years as an ex-Catholic atheist, I used to wonder, "Why don't these people just leave the Church?" If you're going to protest against the authority of Rome, then you are a Pro-test-ant. It seems to me that if you don't believe that the scriptures are authoritative, that the idea that you are injesting part of the flesh of Jesus is even more out there, because it is only supported by a tradition of reading scripture. So if you deny the Communion, just because you've been baptized---what the heck were you baptized into?!?!

Also, even as an atheist, I knew that being "born a Catholic" was a statement of ignorance. (It's interesting that we have so many "intellectual", nuanced, liberals using this phrase.)

So, I still wonder what keeps these people there. As Protestant as I now am, even I can admit that if you want to make a denomination that's cool with all the stuff they wish the pope was cool with, you can start that kind of Church under the protestant tradition (to some degree). Traditional churches might not want to welcome you, but there is no rule that new churches in the liberal tradition cannot be created.

Mostly, I suspect that very few believing Catholics are part of the protest. I also see it as mostly a PEST type of shockwave, that another "election" got away from them, and whereas they could have hoped for a relief from a source of social opposition, they still have that opposition in their way.

Ok Dan and Flynn File readers, this has been bothering me for quite some time, and i'm going to throw it out there, even though I might get a backlash from the Catholic readers.

When I have observed the past few months especially, but even on the whole, I see a reverence put on the pontiff. A reverence that disturbs me, because I feel that many of you are bordering on idolotry here. Viewing the crowds at St. Peter's Square chant "May the Pope live forever" and then witnessing their behavior towards this man, I feel left wondering, "why such a reverence"? Isn't the pontiff still just a man? Why does his blessing mean so much? Why do the words that exit his mouth matter more than mine, or any other man able to read and interpret special revelation?

I understand that as Peter's successor, there comes a certain responsibility to uphold and protect the Bible, but I feel that the Catholic church has erred in some of its doctrine. And I don't feel that the pontiff is infallible in his interpretation of doctrine. To say this, is to assume that the pontiff, indeed, is unable to err, which of course contradicts his sin nature transmitted from Adam.

Ok Catholics out there, do you think my questions are legitimate here? Do you all put too much reverence on the pontiff, or do you condemn this as idolotry as well? I just think that the commandment of "Thou shall have no gods before me" is being violated when you refer to the pontiff as "his holyness" and bow down before him.

CJD: "And I don't feel that the pontiff is infallible in his interpretation of doctrine. To say this, is to assume that the pontiff, indeed, is unable to err, which of course contradicts his sin nature transmitted from Adam."

As a Protestant, neither do I. As an ex-Catholic, I know that there is a difference between veneration and worship.

Second, infallibility is something of a difficult problem anyway. The Pope is not infallible on his choice of breakfasts; he is only infallible when he invokes the doctrine of infallibility.

This is not much different from a protestant saying "The Bah-bul says...!!!" The Bible may say it, but the Bible also says that the Holy Spirit is required to make sense of the Bible. Each one of us, in our dogma, also invoke the infallibility of the Holy Spirit to deliver the meaning of the text that is hidden from fleshly man.

"...do you condemn this as idolotry as well?"

Well, to condemn it reverence for the Pope, as he is the inheritor to the "Keys of the Kingdom" through Peter, it is rather counter to Catholicism. If they saw it as idolatry, the probably wouldn't do it. It takes more than a mere suggestion to you as idolatry, to convince somebody.

Veneration of the Pope bothers you. It bothers me some but a little less (mainly as silliness But, to a Catholic, whose tradition tells them that the Pope is a singular man (but not that singular), I don't see a reason it should bother them.

Even were this blasphemy, God has the willingness to forgive every blasphemy (except against the HS) per Jesus. Jesus had the will to forgive everyone overseeing his crucifixion because they "[knew] not what they [did]". Ignorance is not an absolute excuse, but it is something that God is willing to hear, obviously.

The sheer Grace of God should give us an impetus for more unity and not less.

Chris: We certainly don't worship the pope (or Mary, e.g.). What the pope does is two things:

1. He has certain authority as an articulator of revelation (this is rather limited, so don't go over board with and attack on infallibility; if Ratzinger said tomorrow that the sky was green or that Christ wasn't God it wouldn't be infallible).

2. He provides unity in the church. The emphasis in Catholicicism on unity (both ecclesiastical and ritualistic), like the emphasis on tradition, provides the RC Church with something that Protestants lack (but don't miss): stability over the long haul on doctrine. There is a reason that doctrine changes from age to age, from church to church, and from person to person in Protestant tradition. That's OK, I guess. Just a fact.

This gets back to Dan's point. The church is supposed to be a rock, not an ameoba. Having solidly defined central doctrines -- defended by tradition and an organized, united church -- keeps it from being an ameoba.

Chris - this is obviously a sticking point between Catholics and non, and Sea King has done well explaining the difference between worship and veneration. (Said distinction appliest most when showing the difference between God and saints - but let's not start THAT for now!)

Catholics are delighted that we have a Pope as a visible sign of Christ's promise never to abandon His flock. We do not confuse the two, however. The Holy Spirit has been sent to us, and Christ said (ironically, the last thing He said as He rose from sight) that He was with us until the end of the age. If you will, the Pope is rather like the staff in the hand of the Shepherd: it's just a stick until He starts to use it.

"Infallibility" is a tougher concept. Catholics believe that the Church is inerrant in teaching dogma, as a special grace from God; it doesn't apply solely to papal pronouncement but to the teaching authority of the bishops in union (what we call the Magisterium). We hold this as part of His promise that the gates of Hell would never prevail against the Church. You see that even with this promise, there is a lot of dissent over the doctrines.

And even within faithful Catholics there is disagreement over things like the war, capital punishment, and a host of other prudential issues - in short, how best to live according to those doctrines. So when you say, "I don't feel that the pontiff is infallible in his interpretation of doctrine," you have a point. The doctrine is correct; how anyone understands and applies it is a matter of judgement. Within each teaching there is space to move about (some spaces much smaller than others!).

In all of this, nothing is contrary to what we know about the sinfulness of all human nature, because the guarantee does not rely on the human judgement of the Magisterium but the revelation of the Holy Spirit. (It's similar to what Christ said of the Pharisees: obey them. They hold the chair of Moses. But do not do what they do.) We believe that God has promised this special grace, so we trust Him and obey the teaching, but that doesn't necessarily make the teacher our model. Of course we've been blessed twice, for many of our headmasters have been excellent models as well - that helps to explain the great outpouring of affection for John Paul II and the welcome for Benedict XVI.

"Why do the words that exit his mouth matter more than mine, or any other man able to read and interpret special revelation?"

Others have made adequate general replies to your post, so I'll focus on this particular question. "Without authority, orthodoxy is impossible": with that slogan, I converted from non-denominational Protestantism to Catholicism.

Each of us, as believers, is guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret revelation. If, however, some doubt or controversy arises, it cannot be every man and Bible for themselves; that is a breeding ground for heterodoxy and heresy (witness the hundreds of denominations built on doctrincal differences). The Apostles and their successors, especially the successor of Peter (e.g., "on this Rock"), are the keepers of the Faith (see, e.g., Acts 15:1-35).

Just ask yourself: "Were I a Christian living in Jerusalem around 25 A.D., would my or Peter's interpretation of revelation be more authoritative?" The only difference between Peter and Benedict XVI in that regard is a couple thousand years.

Above are good doctrinal explanations of the role of the pope to which I will add one or two.

But first, most of what you are seeing Christopher, regarding the emotion and outpouring towards JPII, is a response to his personal sanctity. I think that all the talk of his personal charisma, etc., was on target. He had abundant natural gifts at touching people he came into contact with and so much of the response is one of honest grief and love for another person and thus not necessarily indicative of idolatry. Nightfly indicates that such a veneration also occurs for saints and you would see similar popular outpourings towards Padre Pio or Mother Teresa both when they were alive and at their deaths. But clearly Catholic's personal response to any pope will be enhanced by the authority and respect due to the office itself.

So on the doctrinal side I think a non-Catholic can get an insight into the popular veneration of a pope by looking at some of the language used to describe the Church and the pope. The Church is referred to as the barque of Peter of which the pope is the "captain," as it were. Also, the Church is called the Bridegroom of Christ and so the pope as chief priest is the earthly representative to Catholics of Christ and his fidelity to his bridegroom, the Church. Finally, as the "Vicar of Christ" the pope is, for Catholics, the direct successor to Peter (as Brad notes) and so is given the keys to the kingdom from Christ. It may be worthwile to note right at this point that Peter himself denied Christ three times and was not present as he died on the cross, yet Christ saw fit to make Peter the rock upon which He built His Church. That example is always a reminder to Catholics that no man can by rights be pope, that know one (even Peter!) was worthy of such an honor by their own merits. So no Catholic should be unaware that the Church in its human elements, including popes, are as you mention subject to Adam's sinfulness. However, this very fact, again keeping Peter in mind, enhances the office of pope itself. Peter after all demonstrated Christ's fidelity to the Church by his response to grace through suffering martyrdom and Catholics credit the office of pope as containing many graces of the Holy Spirit.

I understand the difference between veneration and worship, but still, some catholics go way overboard.

Ok, there seems to be allot fo confusion. I "used to be" Quite a catholic scholar, and a monk. The Pope, and only the Pope, is infallable while sitting on the thrown of Peter on matters of eclesiastical authority. Church Dogma, right and wrong and all that.

This comes from the Bible: speaking to peter jesus says upon you i will build my church. whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I don't really understand the non-catholic interest in all this since it doesn't affect anyone non-catholic.

If I may condense Mr. Flynn’s main point, as I perceive it, the election of the new pope brings the termites out of the woodwork because the termites are narcissists. As politically liberal narcissists, they intend as just (one more) faction to reformulate Catholicism after their own modern, progressive heterodox desires. There is nothing surprising here. It would appear, to this non-Catholic observer, that Catholicism has for much or most of its history had the problem of factionalism, hence the many councils and excommunications. Why else would the leadership of the church hunt down heretics? “Kill them all, let God sort them out” is a Catholic original.

Mr. Flynn states that times have changed, God hasn’t. Precisely. Given that I agree with this point, how would I know that God has not changed? By closely examining the written word of Christ and His apostles, all of them, not just Peter.

As an observer, it matters to me what sort of pope Benedict XVI is because of the impact he has on the world at large. If he opposes adultery, homosexuality and abortion, well and good. But for the true Bible believer, it is not because Benedict says so, but because the Bible, properly understood, plainly says so, and I measure popes and myself against the Word too.

And now to points made by the above posts.

1. Catholicism may emphasize unity, but history shows it has been heavily factionalized, hence for example, the Eastern rite versus the Western rite factions. The existence of the position of the pope has not remedied this. “Short” makes reference to unity in Catholicism as desirable. But I respond, how does a true Catholic find unity with those who want the new pope’s head on a stick out in front of the Vatican?
2. “Short” states that doctrine changes from age to age, etc., in Protestantism, but that’s exactly what I accuse Catholicism of being guilty. In reference to Protestant factions, I could not care less about those who honor the God of the Word and the Word for what it claims, but differ with me on doctrinal points, as no one forces me to participate with them and I am free to fellowship with those who hold the same doctrine I do. Of course Protestantism has a majority of the same kind of narcissists to which Mr. Flynn objects. No one’s perfect, which is why we all need a Savior.
3. “Brad” states “Without authority, orthodoxy is impossible”. Maybe. This point is unproven and unprovable. The only authority I need is the Word of God. As I said, I measure all supposedly “orthodox” statements against the Word. It’s final. Brad states that all believers are guided by the Holy Spirit to interpret revelation, but “it cannot be every man and Bible for themselves”. I suggest you can’t have it both ways. Ultimately, every man does judge for himself/herself. Most pick the wrong way.
4. Brad states “The Apostles and their successors, especially the successor of Peter (e.g., "on this Rock"), are the keepers of the Faith”. This is again an unproven assertion. Nowhere in the Scripture do we find that Peter had any special position of superlative authority, which of course brings me to the issue of Matthew 16:13 and following. Every Catholic I have talked to misses the overwhelming point of this passage, which is to show that the rock of truth to which Christ refers, on which the church is built, is Peter’s confession that He, Christ, is the Messiah, the Son of God. Certainly the church is not built upon Peter. If that was what Christ plainly meant, He would have said, “upon you (Peter) I will build my church”. Otherwise, Christ is obfuscating, which is unacceptable and absurd. Catholics take some kind of strange constructionist interpretation of two verses to prove their doctrine, which they must immediately abandon as they move on in this passage, because in the following verses (Matthew 16:23 and following), Christ speaks of His impending passion and Peter rebukes Him, whereupon Christ, the Master, rebukes Peter, speaking directly to him, saying “Get behind me Satan”. Now either the rock of the Church literally is Peter and he’s also literally Satan, on the clear authority of Christ Himself, or the constructionist method of interpretation fails when applied to these two passages. In fact, the constructionist method would more strongly insist on Peter being the Devil than him being the rock of the Church! In any event, the massive testimony of the rest of the New Testament is that the Church is built on Christ and Him alone. Peter, I believe, would agree completely.
5. The idea that Peter alone was given the keys of the kingdom (whatever that means) is directly refuted by Christ in Matthew 18:18, where He speaks to all of the disciples saying the same thing to them all.
6. Brad states “Just ask yourself: "Were I a Christian living in Jerusalem around 25 A.D., would my or Peter's interpretation of revelation be more authoritative?"” Excuse me for being pedantic, but the only written revelation in existence at that time was the Old Testament and the spoken words of Christ. Since Christ was still on earth in 25 A.D. (his crucifixion occurring in 27 A.D., according to my sources), if I were living at that point, I would go straight to Christ and get my revelation from Him, and bypass Peter completely. The only difference between then and now is that His Words are written down for everyone to assimilate.

The bible alone?! Then you say that Peter isn't the Rock of the Church!? That's a pretty clear passage, and yet you twist it because it's unconfortable for your view of the faith. As Brad says: now it's every man and his bible for himself.

"The rock of truth to which Christ refers, on which the church is built, is Peter’s confession that He, Christ, is the Messiah, the Son of God. Certainly the church is not built upon Peter."

Pretty simple to disprove you here: "Peter" means "rock." Christ is making a pun.

There is other evidence too, in Acts and in the Gospels, that Peter was the leader of the apostles. You object about Peter's sinfulness. Not only did Brian address this issue earlier, but King David himself was quite a sinner, and so are we all. What's the problem?

I am w/ Short. Christ had already given to Simon the name Peter, which means rock, so when He says "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" the meaning seems pretty clear. Particularly when combined with the testimony in the various epistles and apostolic writings regarding Peter's leadership.

But I think you are right about Dan's main point.

As for Catholic factionalism, of course the Catholic Church has splinter factions, they are called Protestants! ;)

I will comment, firstly, that Alan Roberts makes some very interesting arguments. I'll let Alan argue the scripture that he cited, but I will say the following, now that I've gotten everyone on this subject:

1) I was never talking about John Paul II, or the veneration for him. I think he was a wonderful, holy man, who lived a Godly life. My criticism for Catholics was more towards the idolization they put on the office, and hence, the man that holds that office. Now that JPII has passed, you see the crowds in St. Peter's square crying out to Pope Bennedict, "May you live forever" instead of saying something like, "Lead us so we may be more like Christ". You see, Catholics place too much emphasis on their leader, and not enough emphasis on their savior. They are victimized by their dogma and tradition, and mark their leaders as infallible.

I am reminded of Pope Pius XII, who was leading the church during WW2, when the Nazis were killing millions of Jews. If the leader of the church kept silent while millions were dying, I think we have a problem here.

I'm not saying that that all Popes committed the sins of ommission that Pius did, but I am saying that when people look to a man for spiritual direction, instead of to God's holy words, and within their own hearts, trouble ensues.

2. As far as the scripture in Matthew saying that "Upon you Peter..." I just don't see that this was meant as a formal passing of the crown, or whatever you want to call it. Christ spoke to all the apostles in his sermon on the mount, and one could make the case that in the great commission, he made them all, and thus, made us all leaders. I would even go as far to say that Paul provided more leadership in the early church than Peter did. At least there is more biblical support for this.

3. The biggest problem I have with Catholics, is not their adoration for Mary or the Pope, but rather, the emphasis they place on tradition and not scripture. Also, I would like someone to give me biblical support that Mary ascended into Heaven. Some Catholics have tried to argue this to me, and I am not convinced.

Call my point of views, "sola scriptura" if you want, but I won't take it as an insult.

Actually, Short, I don’t have a problem with the idea that Peter might be the first pope per se, except that there’s not a shred of biblical evidence that he ever was, that he thought he was, or that any of the other apostles ever thought he was. Unmistakably, he was a leader in the early church (the Acts 15 passage to which you refer portrays James, not Peter, as the head of the Jerusalem church, making the final judgment; Peter merely speaks first; if Peter’s the first pope, why didn’t he have the final say?), but no Scripture develops the doctrine of the primacy of Peter.

If any of the New Testament writers were to develop such a doctrine, it would have been Paul, and he says that he (Paul) is not in the least inferior in any respect to the most eminent apostles, per II Corinthians 11 and elsewhere. Specifically, in Galatians 2, Paul states that he is not inferior to Peter. In fact, later on in this passage he has to withstand Peter to his face, accusing him of fearful hypocrisy, not exactly a position one would expect Paul to take if Peter was the first pope. Otherwise, Paul, the apostle who would have gotten my vote for first pope if it were a voting issue, never mentions the idea of the papacy.

In my post above and here, I am not at all objecting to Peter’s sinfulness, it’s irrelevant to this issue; he suffered the same human failures as almost all of the other apostles except Paul and perhaps John, and certainly as I have. In fact, when Peter mentions Paul in his epistles, he refers to him as “our beloved brother Paul” at a time that surely postdated the Antioch experience. I am going with the biblical evidence.

As I said above, it’s ultimately always every man’s place to judge the truth of a proposition. You did. You made at some point the conscious decision to be a Catholic. At the Judgment seat, we will all give account for our acceptance and rejection of the truth, as well as our other actions. You go with Catholicism; I go with the Scripture alone.

Please carefully read the Matthew 16:13 and following passage. You will see, I hope, that the fundamental issue of this passage is who Christ is, not who Peter is. Christ, using his human given name, told him, based upon his confession, that he was blessed in that Christ’s Heavenly Father had revealed this to him, a proposition requiring amazing faith. Did Christ then grant him a special privilege? Yes, of course. But it was not the position of being the rock upon which the church was built. Paul emphatically states that the church is built on the foundation of all of the prophets and apostles, Christ being the chief corner stone. As usual, everywhere in the New Testament, Christ always, always gets the preeminence. Check it out.

Informed Christians know that Peter (petros in the Greek) means stone, not rock. The usage is that of a small stone that could be picked up and thrown without difficulty. But in the second phrase, where Christ says “upon this rock”, the Greek word for “rock” is petra, which unambiguously means a massive boulder, house sized or bigger, and could even refer to an entire rock face of a mountain side. One ancient city in the region, built into the rock face of a cliff, was called Petra. The truth that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God, is indeed a Rock (of Gibraltar or Mt. Everest, if you please; words fail me). By comparison, Peter is just a stone. That’s the force of the imagery in the original, lost to some degree in translation. Again, Christ always gets the preeminence. Everyone else, including Peter, pales into insignificance by comparison.

Is Christ making a pun? Maybe, but I doubt it. That suggests that Christ was something of a wordsmith, with something cute to say, which in my opinion demeans Him. This is not the Christ of the Scripture. The context of this passage is deadly serious.

Also, please consider that Christ, in the first part of Matthew 16 speaks to the scribes and Pharisees, and refuses to accept their request for a sign, speaking, to a degree, in riddles. This is not an unusual habit of His, speaking to unbelievers in veiled language. But then he plainly corrects the disciples after they misunderstand his statement regarding the leaven of the Pharisees. As Christ says in Mark 4 and elsewhere, it is given to the disciples to know some things that the world can’t and won’t understand. Christ would have made certain that the disciples understood that Peter was here being set up to be the first pope, if that was His point. But it wasn’t.

Other Gospel passages like Luke 9, regarding who is the greatest among the disciples and elsewhere argue against Peter’s primacy. I could keep going, but to finalize, this could be thought of as weighing all of the biblical evidence, hopefully under the instruction of the Holy Spirit. It’s, say, 100 to 1 against the doctrine of Peter’s primacy and the doctrine of the papacy for that matter. It’s very clear and not at all twisted.

What a great discussion of religious difference! I actually don't think Catholics and Prots are NOT as different as the usual rhetoric implies. Christopher Doyle hits the nail on the head. The question is not whether we as Christians will have a leader. Christopher says that we are all leaders. Exactly right... Protestants have popes too. Each man is his own. Is this not the source of the instability of "Protestant" doctrine over the centuries? You will of course say that there is nothing to fear here, because the Holy Spirit will guide each Chirstian's reading of Scripture. We say the same exact thing with the word 'infallibility', except that our understanding of infallibility is
*more* limited! Infallibility is restricted to the persistent beliefs of the church and to the pope as an articulator of this faith. If you trust in the Holy Spirit to guide your reading of scripture, are we any more silly for trusting that the Holy Spirit will not allow the fallible men who occupy Peter's chair to squander away the ancient faith of the church? If we give priority to our popes over Christ (as Alan says), then so do each one of you. I don't think any of us do that. But the difference between us will seem great, as long as infallibility and the Catholic understanding the place of scripture in revelation remains misunderstood. That's why this discussion seems good to me.

I actually think that Alan's parsing of petra and petros shows the flimsiness of trying to base all belief in scripture. This is a really clear text. But there will always be ambiguities in the text that put doubt on an interpretation. The question is: when these ambiguities are significant, does each invidual read it in a void, trusting in the HS, and then decide on its meaning for himself? Does each one go his own way? Or, do we also look to the persistent beliefs of the ancient church (and to the teaching authority given to the apostles, with Peter as their leader, on Pentecost) as the guide for us all?

In response to Short’s post above, it saddens me to have to admit that some Protestants have, in effect, their own popes in their midst. However, I must insist that, biblically, each man is not his/her own pope. The true Bible believer holds that the Holy Spirit alone (as in the Holy Spirit is my Pope, John 14, 15) guides each into the truth, and that there are pitfalls and tripwires along the way.

The ungodly, in this instance the so-called Catholics to whom Flynn objects, would be portrayed as struggling with the Scriptures to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16). I suspect that they have zero use for the Scripture and less for the Pope.

Let’s say I develop a doctrinal notion that the moon is made of white cheese, not green. I come to the Scripture looking for support for my position, and (inevitably) find the Scripture showing me, “No Al, the moon isn’t made of cheese at all”. Then I am forced to jettison my erroneous doctrine in order to be true to God. By the way, I understand that Catholic dogma is that the Bible is completely inspired, inerrant and infallible. My objection (and I suspect Doyle’s objection in part) is that they then practically set aside this doctrine with their adherence to church tradition as it conflicts with, and supercedes the Holy Scripture.

My investigation into church tradition as separate from the Holy Scripture indicates that it is a hornet’s nest of contradictions. No wonder Justin Martyr stated that he felt safe with the Scripture alone.

Short, I never said, nor did I intend to say that Catholicism gives priority to your popes over Christ. But since you raised the question, is that what you do? You and I don’t answer to each other, or the Pope. We will both answer to God someday, and no pope will be acting as intermediary for anyone. When it’s your turn for judgement, the current pope won’t step out of the crowd and say to God Almighty, “it’s alright, no need to question him, this one’s one of ours!”

So, in response to your last statements, I humbly submit that I am not going my own way. I go the way of the ancient church, because the Scripture is more ancient than any church tradition, and as such is the only reliable source of persistent beliefs, as promulgated by the teaching authority of the apostles, including Peter. Note that Acts 2 says nothing about Peter being the leader. That’s your inference. He is portrayed as “standing up with the eleven” and doing the speaking. This has, I think, to do with opening that first door of the Kingdom to be opened with the first key to the Kingdom. The second door, opened with the second key, is portrayed in Acts 10.

"The Scripture is more ancient than any church tradition." Not true. Moreover, nonsensical. (1)The New Testiment becomes the New Testiment (canonical) as a result of the ancient church's traditions of using certain letters and gospels in its services. This is historical fact; rejecting the formation of the canon through tradition causes the progressives' interest in the gnostic gospels. (2) The written New Testiment itself is the the written expression of the orally transmitted testiment/tradition. The historical evidence about late dates and authorship of the written gospels prove this. 3) The New Testiment (acts and the letters) refers to already established traditions among the early Christian community. Thus, the "Scripture" is defined via traditions and refers to others, so your statement undermines itself. More interestingly, (4) some of the traditions which nondenoms most emphatically reject (e.g. preists offering sacrifices of bread and wine) preexist the entire NT because they were part of Jewish religious ritual and continued uninterupted when Christ founded the Christian church.

Say what you want about how scripture is a special form of revelation, but don't say that scripture precedes the unity of the christian church and its traditional beliefs and practices. I'm out.

Informed Christians know that Peter (petros in the Greek) means stone, not rock. The usage is that of a small stone that could be picked up and thrown without difficulty. But in the second phrase, where Christ says “upon this rock”, the Greek word for “rock” is petra, which unambiguously means a massive boulder, house sized or bigger, and could even refer to an entire rock face of a mountain side. One ancient city in the region, built into the rock face of a cliff, was called Petra. The truth that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of God, is indeed a Rock (of Gibraltar or Mt. Everest, if you please; words fail me). By comparison, Peter is just a stone. That’s the force of the imagery in the original, lost to some degree in translation. Again, Christ always gets the preeminence. Everyone else, including Peter, pales into insignificance by comparison.

All very well and good, except for one minor detail: Peter did not speak Greek (That is why he required Mark to serve as a translator when he went to Rome). The common language of Palestine at the time of Christ was Aramaic. We know that Aramaic was used by the Apostles from Eusebius of Caesarea, who recorded that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Aramaic. It wasn't until Christianity spread from Palestine that Greek came into use.
The Aramaic word for "rock" is kepha, which transliterates into Greek as Cephas; we see this in John 1:42 ( Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).), and it is the name Paul uses to identify Peter in Galatians and 1st Corinthians. And "kepha" means "large rock" just as "petra" does in Greek.
Furthermore, when examined in context, what Christ bestows upon Peter is the office of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings; this is signified by granting him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

Peter may not have spoken Greek, but Matthew did, and his word choice in his gospel account was deliberate, if not consciously on his part, then certainly by the work of the Holy Spirit, Who inspired the Gospel account. Additionally, Peter and Paul wrote of Christ as the foundation stone of the Church which the Builders (the Temple authorities, teachers of the Mosaic Law, the scribes) rejected.

All the spiritual language in the Bible referencing the Rock of Salvation point to the Messiah, which Peter most certainly was not. Peter and Paul were chief among the apostles who were built as living stones, along with the other apostles and the Old Testament prophets, into the living temple of the Lord, the foundation of which is Christ.

Besides, guys, I think your case becomes even more ROCK solid, pun intended, when you admit that CHRIST, not Peter, is the doctrinal, essential, immovable and unwavering eternal ROCK upon which Christ himself built His church.

Ken, what are you talking about Matthew's words for, I thought we were talking about Christ's words? Dennis Mahon just destroyed your argument by showing that Kephas doesn't have the same grammatical ambiguity as Petra/Petros. Are you claiming that Christ spoke the Greek during this incident? No, you're just a trained anti-Catholic insisting on your line. Yawn. Whatever.

Ken,

Catholics certainly recognize that Christ is the foundation of the Church and the founder of it. The passage in question tells us upon whom Christ founded His Church in its temporal manifestation but this doesn't mean that Christ is not still himself the foundation and cornerstone. The fact that Peter had just made a confession of faith is definitely significant and shows that Christ is the foundation and cornerstone as you note, but then Christ Himself tells Peter that he shall be the rock upon which He builds His Church. I think that possibly the rub isn't so much over the interpretation of "rock" as it is over the meaning of "church."

I grabbed my Douay-Rheims Bible to see what annotations might be given to this passage. (This Bible is the last official translation into English of Jerome's Latin Vulgate, so it is sort of the Catholic "King James"). The commentary was done by a Bishop Richard Challoner in the early 1700s. Anyway, his explanation of the passage says that after Peter's profession of faith, "our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, St. John 1.42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ Himself, the chief foundation stone, *in quality* of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven."

When I then turned to John 1:42 it reads ". . . And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter." The Douay-Rheims version often leaves certain Greek and Hebrew words not translated or simply transliterated of which Cephas is an example. The title page claims this translation was "translated from the Latin Vulgate (which St. Jerome had translated from the Greek) and diligently compared with the Hebrew, Greek, and other editions in divers languages." I can't say that I know any of these ancient languages well and so won't infallibly claim the veracity of this translation but I wanted to lay out what I have to draw from.

Anyway, I quote all that not so much to try to convince anyone of the Catholic view but only to try and present clearly what that interpretation is, specifically as regards defending against a misreading attributed to Catholics that would seem to elevate in any way Peter over Christ. The next verse about Peter having the power to bind and loose really doesn't make sense to me if the passage we are discussing is not actually speaking about Peter being the earthly, mortal head of Christ's Church, and in that capacity the "rock" of it.

I would like to mention that I know FlynnFiles isn't a forum dedicated to ecumenical debates over scriptural interpretation but I really enjoy these discussions. Everyone above, of whatever confession, strike me as serious Christians and I recognize common ground here. Particularly when you contrast our civil debates with the histrionics which accompany much political debate.

I am glad we are on the same side in opposition to the de-Christianizing agenda of America's secularist elites.

Just a minor amendation to Dennis Mahon's excellent reply to Ken Shepherd:

Greek nouns, unlike English nouns, have different sets of endings depending on their gender. "Petra" is a feminine noun meaning "rock."

So what if you're a 1st-Century Greek-speaker and you want to give the nick-name "rock" to a man? It won't do to have him called by a feminine noun; how emasculating! Naturally, the masculine endings must be used. Thus, "petra" used as the name of a man becomes "Petros." Isn't grammar fun.

Nonetheless, the whole point is moot because none of the participants spoke Greek. And the fact that the author of the gospel wrote in Greek is no more interesting than the fact that your Bible is written in English.

Better make that "emmendation."

Damn it all: make that "emendation."