What are Catholics supposed to make of the verse that established our Church? Matthew 16:18-19 is our verse. It is the one that we cling to with all of our might. Without that verse; without that phrase being uttered by our Lord, our way of life ceases to exist. And why shouldn't it? Out of the entire litany of Christian scripture, no other verse claims so much and promises even more (except for John, but that is another post for another day). In my own apologetic work, I have turned to this scripture multiple times. Each time is like a new adventure. I am never sure what I am going to hear, but I am sure that I am going to hear a lame excuse as to why that verse doesn't really say what I think it says.
I am always quick to respond to the comment with plenty of logic and reason, but it usually falls on deaf ears. And that doesn't mean that my reasons aren't strong or are missing anything. It is just that there is not response to them and so the person that I am speaking (read: arguing) with has to disregard them or change their entire theological platform. Let's review some of the 3 major responses that I get and how to think through them. Let me emphasize here that I am not an apologist. I just happen to run into people that want to share scripture with me but always get upset when I throw scripture in their face and turn it on their heads.
3. "I just can't believe that Jesus would leave his church in the hands of men." On its head, this argument is sound, but let's dig a little deeper. First off, let's not forget that our Lord can do anything. He can leave the Church in the hands of whoever he wants and he can know it will be safe because he exists outside of time and space. It is not absurd to believe then, that Jesus would leave his church in the hands of men and promise that the "gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" because he knows how the story end. Beside that, the New Testament is full of heavenly authority being given to man. To sum up a response, I like what my friend says. She says, "We believe that just like fallible men penned infallible scripture, we believe that fallible men can run an infallible church." Jesus promised us that he would always be with us. It's about time that we remember that and stand tall knowing that our church, the Catholic Church, is THE ONLY church with heavenly authority.
2. "Peter isn't the rock that Jesus is talking about. It's his confession." This is probably my favorite argument because of the language issue. As an English speaker, I find that our understanding of scripture is lacking. Because we don't construct our language the same that other languages do, we miss out on the obvious connections that other languages don't miss. And once you explain the language issue, it's easy for a Protestant to move onto other parts of the argument. I have been in multiple discussions on this point and each time the discussion goes a little different. But on each one, I think it is imperative to show the following:
1. That Peter's name is changed and name changes signify a covenant with God. It only occurs a couple times throughout the Bible. God doesn't change people's names willy nilly.
2. That Peter's name means rock. Don't get caught up in an argument over large stones or small stones. The point is that Jesus essentially said, "Your name is Rock and upon this Rock I found my church."
3. That Peter's confession is a rock of faith and important to the foundation of our faith.
4. That Jesus is the cornerstone, but He made Peter the Rock, or foundation, of his church. This doesn't mean that Peter is the foundation of our faith. Jesus is our foundation, but he built his church on Peter. He didn't have to. He could have told every apostle, the same thing, but he didn't, he specifically gave authority to Peter. He gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Whether we agree with the Catholic Church or not, we have to remember that Christ didn't have to give Peter the keys. He could have done things differently. We have to acknowledge Christs actions and try to understand what is probable, not what is plausible.
1. "The 'Keys' in this case are heavenly authority that Jesus is giving to the believer." Explained in a little more depth, I find this argument somewhat compelling. And without a historical reading (one inline with how Christians have historically read that passage), I see how that understanding makes sense. It is exciting to see that once Peter makes his confession that Jesus is the messiah, Jesus gives him heavenly authority. It's exciting to know that as believers we have some authority if we accept Christ. But I think this is a misreading. Again, Peter is alone when Christ changes his name and gives him heavenly authority. He makes Peter the Prime Minister of Heaven. If Jesus meant this in some general sense. Why change Peter's name? Why not do this with a general audience? This isn't the only place where we see people professing their belief in Jesus and yet Jesus does this for the first time alone with one of his apostles; AND he declares his the foundation of his church right before this. I don't know how people so easily separate the two, except that there is no other way to look at this passage and still maintain the same belief system.
Let's remember when talking about this that there is no way to truly discount Peter's authority or role. He is the foundation of our Church and, as such, a major part of what we believe. I find it best to remind people about our reliance on Christ and our adherence to the Bible in these cases as well. Most people have strong opinions on this, but don't understand what the keys are or why they are important. But with a little faith, prayer, and love in your heart, a discussion about this topic can be pleasurable, enlightening, and fun to engage in. Have fun out there and don't be afraid to share your faith!
I am always quick to respond to the comment with plenty of logic and reason, but it usually falls on deaf ears. And that doesn't mean that my reasons aren't strong or are missing anything. It is just that there is not response to them and so the person that I am speaking (read: arguing) with has to disregard them or change their entire theological platform. Let's review some of the 3 major responses that I get and how to think through them. Let me emphasize here that I am not an apologist. I just happen to run into people that want to share scripture with me but always get upset when I throw scripture in their face and turn it on their heads.
3. "I just can't believe that Jesus would leave his church in the hands of men." On its head, this argument is sound, but let's dig a little deeper. First off, let's not forget that our Lord can do anything. He can leave the Church in the hands of whoever he wants and he can know it will be safe because he exists outside of time and space. It is not absurd to believe then, that Jesus would leave his church in the hands of men and promise that the "gates of Hades shall not prevail against it" because he knows how the story end. Beside that, the New Testament is full of heavenly authority being given to man. To sum up a response, I like what my friend says. She says, "We believe that just like fallible men penned infallible scripture, we believe that fallible men can run an infallible church." Jesus promised us that he would always be with us. It's about time that we remember that and stand tall knowing that our church, the Catholic Church, is THE ONLY church with heavenly authority.
2. "Peter isn't the rock that Jesus is talking about. It's his confession." This is probably my favorite argument because of the language issue. As an English speaker, I find that our understanding of scripture is lacking. Because we don't construct our language the same that other languages do, we miss out on the obvious connections that other languages don't miss. And once you explain the language issue, it's easy for a Protestant to move onto other parts of the argument. I have been in multiple discussions on this point and each time the discussion goes a little different. But on each one, I think it is imperative to show the following:
1. That Peter's name is changed and name changes signify a covenant with God. It only occurs a couple times throughout the Bible. God doesn't change people's names willy nilly.
2. That Peter's name means rock. Don't get caught up in an argument over large stones or small stones. The point is that Jesus essentially said, "Your name is Rock and upon this Rock I found my church."
3. That Peter's confession is a rock of faith and important to the foundation of our faith.
4. That Jesus is the cornerstone, but He made Peter the Rock, or foundation, of his church. This doesn't mean that Peter is the foundation of our faith. Jesus is our foundation, but he built his church on Peter. He didn't have to. He could have told every apostle, the same thing, but he didn't, he specifically gave authority to Peter. He gave the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Whether we agree with the Catholic Church or not, we have to remember that Christ didn't have to give Peter the keys. He could have done things differently. We have to acknowledge Christs actions and try to understand what is probable, not what is plausible.
1. "The 'Keys' in this case are heavenly authority that Jesus is giving to the believer." Explained in a little more depth, I find this argument somewhat compelling. And without a historical reading (one inline with how Christians have historically read that passage), I see how that understanding makes sense. It is exciting to see that once Peter makes his confession that Jesus is the messiah, Jesus gives him heavenly authority. It's exciting to know that as believers we have some authority if we accept Christ. But I think this is a misreading. Again, Peter is alone when Christ changes his name and gives him heavenly authority. He makes Peter the Prime Minister of Heaven. If Jesus meant this in some general sense. Why change Peter's name? Why not do this with a general audience? This isn't the only place where we see people professing their belief in Jesus and yet Jesus does this for the first time alone with one of his apostles; AND he declares his the foundation of his church right before this. I don't know how people so easily separate the two, except that there is no other way to look at this passage and still maintain the same belief system.
Let's remember when talking about this that there is no way to truly discount Peter's authority or role. He is the foundation of our Church and, as such, a major part of what we believe. I find it best to remind people about our reliance on Christ and our adherence to the Bible in these cases as well. Most people have strong opinions on this, but don't understand what the keys are or why they are important. But with a little faith, prayer, and love in your heart, a discussion about this topic can be pleasurable, enlightening, and fun to engage in. Have fun out there and don't be afraid to share your faith!