Olli Dürr

Die Welt konservativ betrachtet

Peter the Rock? – Catholic apostolicity is a castle in the air

Schloss Neuschwanstein


The Roman Catholic Church claims apostolicity. This institution was founded on the apostle Peter, the so-called rock. Every pope is therefore the legitimate successor of Peter, with all the “divine inspirations”.

Everything is based on the succession of Peter

The Church of Rome is clinging to the thesis of the Succession of Peter like an extreme climber who has slipped on the edge of a rock.
This is what Pope Paul VI says. written “Acta Apostolicae Sedis” of June 30, 1966, page 421, in the “Language of the Dead (-Worshipers)”:

Rivi Muneniensis - Page 421

Qui summi Dei numine et voluntate principem locum in Christi Ecclesia obtinemus, adorandi Filii Dei hic in terris Vicaril Petrique sucessores, etsi omni parte cirium impares smus tanto oneri sustinendo, …

We, who, by the power and will of God Most High, occupy the highest place in the Church of Christ, the successors of the Vicar and Peter, who venerate the Son of God here on earth, even if we do not bear such a great burden in every respect have grown, …

The legitimacy of the Church of Rome stands or falls with this proclaimed succession and with it its countless dogmas that diametrically deviate from the Gospel (Info).

The “foundation” of apostolicity

The “foundation” of this apostolicity is found in a single verse,Matthew 16:18:
And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

For the “fathers” of this church the situation was already carved. Simon called Jesus Christ Peter and he wanted to build his church on that. The Bishop of Rome or the Pope is Peter’s successor and this church already embodies the body of Jesus Christ. This means that the pontiff is also Christ’s representative on earth, with all powers and all authority.

Succession is defended

But the topic is far from being fully resolved. With the Reformation, this “ancient error” had long been questioned and, above all, cast into doubt. With the loss of the monopoly of interpretative sovereignty, this church finds itself forced again and again to defend the hypothesis of a successor to Peter. The Catholic magazine “Catholic.com” has once again stepped into the breach to tear the “Rock of Peter” out of the hands of “evil” Protestants (Source). The author relies on Jesus’ statement according to Matthew 16:18, takes up some counter-arguments from Protestants and tries to refute them.

A twist of words and meaning

Puzzle pieces
Simply swap sentences and words around

Many Protestants referred to Ephesians 2:20, in which Paul taught the church that the “house of God” was built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Here Jesus Christ himself is the cornerstone.
Ephesians 2:20:
And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
From this it can be seen that all the apostles formed the foundation of the church and not Peter alone. According to the author, Jesus Christ was given a unique or prominent place here as a “capstone.”

Now at this point the author has simply constructed a “capstone” from the “cornerstone”. The complete opposite in a construction project. The cornerstone, as described in the verse, is the beginning of all things, the orientation point for everything that is built on this cornerstone. The capstone, on the other hand, is the last stone on an almost completed building.
The argument is again a typical “Catholic reversal”, true to the motto: “No one will notice”. The Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of Jesus Christ, but is based on a (counterfeit) copy.

A guess as a fact

Some Protestants see this as evidence that Peter himself was unique as the foundation of the church, but that was not the case, says the author. Peter would have been highlighted, like Jesus Christ. The author “probably” sees a hidden premise in this argument. He suspects this, but nevertheless this premise is demonstrably false. For this be1. Peter 2:25a proof:
For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

In this verse, the Greek word for “shepherd” is “poimena” (“ποιμενα”) and the word “pastor” (“bishop”) is represented by the word “episkopon” (“επισκοπον”). The word “poimena” is also used for pastors in the church, according to the author, for example in Ephesians 4:11:
“And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;”

Therefore, the Protestants’ argument cannot apply because there are other “pastors” in the church than just Jesus Christ.
The counter-argument would only apply if the author’s “assumption” that it was a hidden premise was also true. For did Jesus Christ ever exclude teachers, shepherds, or pastors, or commission His apostles to go into the world and teach the gospel? Didn’t the apostles receive the Holy Spirit precisely for this task (Pentecost)?

At this point the author tries to make an assumed claim, only to then supposedly refute it with an unsound argument. What do teachers, shepherds, pastors of the gospel have to do with the foundation, that is, the rock on which the house of God is built? Teachers, shepherds and pastors are a part of the house of God with their respective roles within it.

A Roman Catholic castle in the air

Neuschwanstein Castle
Real castle on real rock – apostolicity is a castle in the air

The author tries to refute the legitimate doubts of many Protestants with further theses. But since the Church of Rome has based its argument of supposed apostolicity on the statement in Matthew 16:18, it is definitely worth taking a look at the basic Greek text.
And I say also unto 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 word “Peter” is represented by the Greek word “petros” (“πετρος”) and the word “rock” is represented by “petra” (“πετρα”).
Peter received this name as an epithet in the form of a quality. His birth name is Simon.
However, the Greek word “petros” does not mean rock or foundation, but rather boulder or stone. However, the word “petra” means a rock or a foundation.

For better understanding, the message of this verse could also be as follows:
“And I also say to you, Simon, you are the stone, and on this foundation I will build my church, …”

Simon Peter was never called a rock or a foundation. Peter is the stone and Jesus Christ is the foundation!

Jesus Christ is the foundation

Simon Peter was never the rock – He is the stone

It remains to be seen whether Jesus Christ was pointing to himself when he heard the word “petra” or whether he was pointing to a rock. The only important thing is to recognize that Jesus Christ never called Simon “rock or foundation,” but rather “stone or boulder.”
This means that the supposed foundation of the Roman Catholic Church has turned out to be a fiction, a castle in the air built on quicksand.

The rock, or rather the foundation, is none other than Jesus Christ himself. This is proven, among other things, by the statement in 1. Corinthians 10:4:
And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Also in 1. Corinthians 3:11 shows that this foundation was only laid by Jesus Christ and that He also represents it:
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

How the spiritual house of God is structured and that Jesus Christ can only be the cornerstone installed at the beginning and not the keystone installed at the end is shown in 1. Peter 2:4-6:
To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.

Embarrassing chain of arguments

Embarrassing argumentation – easy to convince

Everything that is built on this argument of apostolicity, no matter how coherent it may sound, is a complete pipe dream. This is an area for scholastics, but not for realists and those seeking and loving truth.

The series of arguments in the Catholic magazine in defense of the fictitious apostolicity of the papacy is a chain of false claims, reversals and insinuations. It seems almost embarrassing, but definitely quite stupid. The succession to Peter the Pope to this day arises from the same spirit that allowed the entire Western Roman Empire to be donated to him by Emperor Constantine (Fraud of the Donation of Constantine).

Study the Bible yourself!

Even with this “fact check” by the Catholic magazine, the “evidence” can only be undermined if the Bible itself is read and studied better as a check. Otherwise the “believer” is at the mercy of the statements of such apologists. In the case of the large churches, be it the Catholic or a Protestant regional church, almost certainly to the ruin of the people.

In the case of the large churches, be it the Catholic or a Protestant regional church, almost certainly to the ruin of the people.

Peter the Rock? – Catholic apostolicity is a castle in the air
Beitrag teilen

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to top