<p>"Could you also clarify how "the rock" ment the papacy?"</p>
<p>Below is a fairly good explanation by the lay Catholic theologian Karl Keating, from Catholic Answers (<a href="http://www.catholic.com)%5B/url%5D">http://www.catholic.com)</a>. I'm strapped for time at the moment, so I post this in the hope that Keating can give you a general sense about where the Catholic Church is coming from regarding Peter and the Papacy. Namely, Scripture. </p>
<hr>
<p>PETER THE ROCK</p>
<p>By Karl Keating</p>
<p>Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say? </p>
<p>For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faithat least I never doubted it or ceased to practice itbut my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels. </p>
<p>Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isnt really all that difficult. </p>
<p>When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-Day Adventist. He asked if he could "share" with me some insights from the Bible. </p>
<p>He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denominations position. </p>
<p>NOT MUCH TO SAY</p>
<p>I wasnt entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didnt know enough about the Bible to respond effectively. </p>
<p>Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." </p>
<p>"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. Thats where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. Thats where he appointed him the first pope." </p>
<p>I knew he usually didnt get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it. </p>
<p>"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you dont know any Greek. Thats the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people dont know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek." </p>
<p>"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me. </p>
<p>"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simons new name is different; its Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble." </p>
<p>"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you dont know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasnt remotely qualified to be it." </p>
<p>"Case closed," he thought. </p>
<p>It was the missionarys turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it. </p>
<p>"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But Im sure youll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic." </p>
<p>"The what?" he asked. </p>
<p>"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke." </p>
<p>"I thought Greek was." </p>
<p>"No," I answered. "It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasnt the spoken language. </p>
<p>"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Many hold that Matthew was written in Aramaicwe know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesareabut it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek." </p>
<p>ARAMAIC IN THE NEW TESTAMENT</p>
<p>"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? That isnt Greek; its Aramaic, and it means, My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? </p>
<p>"Whats more," I said, "in Pauls epistlesfour times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthianswe have the Aramaic form of Simons new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isnt Greek. Thats a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form). </p>
<p>"And what does Kepha mean? It means a rock, the same as petra. (It doesnt mean a little stone or a pebble. What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church. </p>
<p>"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasnt contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." </p>
<p>For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him. </p>
<p>"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why dont we read in the Greek, You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church? Why, for Simons new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?" </p>
<p>"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings. </p>
<p>"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you cant use it as Simons new name, because you cant give a man a feminine nameat least back then you couldnt. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock. </p>
<p>"I admit thats an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have Peter and rock, you lose all of it. But thats the best you can do in Greek." </p>
<p>Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peters role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving 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. </p>
<p>MY TURN TO PAUSE</p>
<p>I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. We exchanged smiles for about thirty seconds. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again. </p>
<p>So what came of this encounter? </p>
<p>I realized that any literate Catholicincluding youcould do the same. You dont have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you cant come up with an answer to a pointed question. </p>
<p>And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed. </p>
<hr>