If there is one Scripture that almost every Catholic knows it is the following Scripture:
Matt 16:18-19
Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give thee the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven .Catholics believe that Jesus was stating that Peter was the rock upon which His Church would be built, since the word Peter means rock. Fundamentalists are adamant in stating that the meaning the Catholic Church gives to this translation is erroneous. When asked what is the rock or who is the rock, views differ depending on the denomination of the person you ask. People in some denominations say that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock. Others say that the rock is Peter's profession that Jesus is the son of God, the long awaited Messiah.
Fundamentalists claim that since the words used in the original Greek, Petros and petra, are different gender (Petros is masculine. Petra is feminine) Christ couldn't have meant Peter was the rock. The problem with this argument is that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written in Greek. Matthew is the only New Testament book written in the language that was spoken by Christ, Aramaic. Now in Aramaic the translation for rock would be Kepha. Substituting Aramaic for Greek we read: Thou art Kepha (neuter gender) and on this kepha (neuter gender) I will build my Church. This translation not only abolishes the problem of two genders which seems to cause a major problem but it clarifies, at least in my opinion, what Jesus was actually saying. Does this mean there was an error in the Greek translation? Not at all. Linguistic scholars say that Christ had to use two genders to be grammatically correct. He could not address Peter as "Petra", which is feminine, because the person He was addressing was a man. The masculine had to be used.
"Well doesn't Ephesians 2:19-20 say that we are fellow citizens with the saints built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ the cornerstone? Isn't it possible Jesus meant all the apostles and not just Peter were the rock?" This is a question which I was asked by a friend. If Jesus meant all the apostles He would have used the plural form of the word "you" in Luke 22:31-32. When we read this passage we know he is speaking to Peter because he refers to him by name and the word "you" that is used is in the singular form.
One thing we might want to consider when reading Matthew 16:18 is why Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to Peter?
Luke 6:13-16
And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.Did the name change have any significance? Was the name of anyone else changed in Scripture by God before? You will notice in the following examples that any time God changed a person's name that the person became what the name meant.
Abram's name was changed to Abraham which means Father of a Multitude.
Genesis 17:5
Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.Sarai's name was changed to Sarah which means princess, a mother of kings.
Genesis 17:15-16
And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.Jacob's name was changed to Israel and he did indeed become a great nation.
Genesis 35:10-12
And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.After looking at these Scriptures we see that every time God changed a person's name that the person became what the name meant. Wouldn't it then be logical to assume that if Jesus, who is God, changed Simon's name to Peter (which means rock) that Peter would become the rock spoken of in Matt. 16:18? Why do all the Evangelists make reference to the name change if it had no significance? (Look these verses up yourself I'm tired. Sorry, just teasing. Seriously some of you need the practice using your Bible. Matt 4:18, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42) Why does John's Gospel specifically state that the name means rock or stone?
A friend after hearing some of these arguments said to me "Well that's all very interesting. You can have your Pope for head of your Church if you want to but the Scriptures say Christ is the head of the Church and that's all I accept."(look up Eph. 5:23 and Colossians 1:18. You probably need more practice) "Oh I agree with you," I said. "Catholics also believe that Christ is head of the Church. We don't believe the Pope to be head of our Church any more than the Jews, escaping pharaoh, thought Moses to be head of their faith. But throughout salvation history God has always appointed someone to handle His affairs here on earth. Someone to determine and give the final ruling in all disputes. This someone would also be used to strengthen God’s people when they faltered. In fact just as Moses had to strengthen his people when they grumbled Jesus told Peter to do the same thing.
Luke 22:31-32
And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.Let's go on to the second verse, Matthew 16:19. The Scripture says I will give thee, talking to Peter only, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "Do you know what that means?" I asked. “It doesn't mean that Peter was a Pope or had anymore power or authority than the other Apostles. Actually it does. Keys are a symbol of authority. In Rev. 1:18 Christ tell us that He has the keys of hell and death.
Revelation 1:18
I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.The keys mean Jesus has complete authority over hell and death. When Jesus told Peter that he would be given the keys to Kingdom of Heaven Peter's jaw probably dropped open because it was as if Jesus had to explain it. Yes Peter I am giving you the keys. Yes you have the authority. That means whatever you bind is bound and whatever you loose is loosed.
One more Scripture I would like you to consider in regards to Peter's role as Pope. In John 21:15-17, Christ the Good Shepherd knowing that His work is done on earth and that soon He will ascend to the Father asks Peter for a profession of love.
John 21:15-17
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.Jesus didn't ask Peter only once which He certainly could have done. He asks Him three times. Why? Jesus wanted to make sure Peter really understood that he was forgiven for denying Him three times. I'm sure He told Peter, but Peter is heartbroken and can't forgive himself. This is the scene as I picture it. Peter I am sure is probably ashamed of the bravado he displayed before Christ and the apostles. I can picture Peter laughing when Jesus foretold his denial. "Me", he bragged ,"deny you? No way. Now these other guys, maybe. Not me. Why I'd die with you rather then deny You." He probably sneered at the other apostles thinking "You guys, maybe. Never me." A different Peter stands before Christ as Jesus asks "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?" No boasting, no sneering at the others this time. Peter probably looking at the ground responds, "Yes Lord you know I do." Jesus probably smiles and says "Feed my lambs." Jesus asks again "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter responds choking back the sobs "You know I do". Jesus tells him, "Feed my sheep." The third time Jesus asks Peter "Simon son of John, do you love me?" The Scriptures say that Peter was upset and grieved when he responded. In my mind I see Peter no longer able to hold back the tears and sobs. He almost groans the response "Lord you know everything; You know I love you." Jesus tells him "Feed my sheep." When Peter said to Jesus "Lord you know everything." I think he was trying to say to Christ "I won't say it, the others will think I'm bragging again, but I want you to know that I really would die for you now. I pray that you know that I am willing to do so and please someday tell me you know I would." Jesus honored Peter's unspoken request immediately.
John 21:18
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.He was telling Peter that he would die in the same manner as He Himself did. How you ask does this show Peter was the first Pope? When Jesus told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. He was in essence saying lambs and sheep make up the entire flock. I am leaving soon and won't be here to tend my flock. When I go I want you, Peter, to be my shepherd on earth.
A common response or objection you are sure to hear and one a friend asked me is "Doesn't the fact that Paul opposed Peter to his face, in Gal. 2:11, show that Peter wasn't the Pope?"
Galatians 2:11
But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.If the Pope is Christ's representative on earth as you believe, doesn't his position make him above reproach?" my friend asked. "It certainly does not. It would be the duty and responsibility of the bishops to censure the Pope for unacceptable conduct. Censure is the term used by the Catholic Church when an official reprimand for unacceptable conduct is given. Which is what Paul did in the case of Peter.", I replied. There are other Scriptures that support Peter's prominence among the Apostles. The Father revealed to Peter alone that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.
Matthew 16:16-17
And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.Peter presided over the apostles when they chose Matthias to take Judas' place as an apostle.
Acts 1:15-16,20
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.There are many more scriptures supporting Peter's role as head of the Church. Ready to gain more experience using your Bible? Go for it. I really am getting tired about now.
It was Peter who judged Ananias and his wife Sapphira guilty of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-10). It was revealed to Peter that the Gospel was to be brought to all mankind not only the Jews (Acts 10). Scripture tells us that the apostles and elders debated a long time trying to determine if the non-Jewish believers had to be circumcised or not. Peter addressed the group and his decision silenced the discussion (Acts 15:5-12). Why is Peter always listed first when the apostles are listed if he wasn’t considered the leader? The remaining apostles are randomly listed. (Matt 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13) Peter addresses the people after the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples (Acts 2:14). Peter makes the first conversions(Acts 2:37-41). Why did the angel specifically mention Peter when he told the women to tell his disciples that Christ had risen? (Mark 16:7) When Peter and John ran to Christ's empty tomb why didn't John enter the tomb first? He, being younger, was at the tomb first but waited until Peter entered the tomb before he did (John 20:3-9). When Jesus appeared to the Apostles, why did he appear first to Cephas (Peter) then the twelve? (1 Cor. 15:5) Why was Peter the first to work a miracle? (Acts 3:5-9) Peter was the first apostle to raise the dead. (Acts 9:40).
The Church at the time of the Apostles and the Early Fathers taught that Peter was the first Pope and the Bishops were sucessors of the Apostles.
Early Church Fathers on the succession of Peter and the Apostles
Pope Clement I [A.D. 80] (Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 should not be confused with Paul’s letters to the Corinthians).
"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 189] (Against Heresies 3:3:1)
"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"Firmilian [A.D. 253] (collected in Cyprian's Letters 74[75]):17).
"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter"Augustine [A.D. 397] (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 4:5)
"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church's] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called 'Catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.