Catholic Error - Matt 16 18: - The Plastic Rock of Rome

The Biblical Identification of the “Rock” in Matt. 16:18: “I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

Just as the foundation of the LDS Church raises and falls on Joseph Smith’s First Vision, the Romish Catholic Church rises and falls on the idolatric false teaching of Papal Succession— based on her inaccurate a-patristic view of Matt. 16:18.

As with atrocious false doctrine of Rome’s Transubstantiation - where the bread and wine ontologically changes to the literal flesh, blood, and divinity of Christ (cf. CCC article 3, para 1413), which denies and deforms the biblical teaching of the incarnation of the Son, Rome teaches that Papal Succession in a real and literal way,
.
The Christian confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God is the Rock of faith upon which the Christian church has been built—and not upon the man Peter.

Note these three points:

1. The Context is NOT Peter, rather, the identification of Jesus Christ (“Who do You say that I am” v. 13).

2. Peter’s Confession (“You are the Christ”) was of a divine origin, thus, not of himself: “And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.” (Matt. 16:17; cf. Eph. 1:4-5; 2:8-9; Phil. 1:29).

3. Both exegetically and the general consensus of the early church affirms that the identification of the Rock in Matt. 16:18, was the faith that Peter confessed and not the man Peter.

Dr. Edward Dalcour

[SojournerDidimus]

Have you looked into the videos by Cameron (Capturing Christianity) in his flirting with RCC? He looked into the parts after the "on this rock I will build my church", I'd love to see you debunk that part.

[tomgrissom]

I noticed you cleverly left out the following verse 16.19(Keys to the Kingdom)…and anybody with a clue about Bible Study knows the following verses expound upon the previous verse. Also, Protestants routinely then throw out Ephesians 2.20 saying “Aha, gotcha!” But, you have to realise also the FOUNDATION is the Apostles and Prophets….along with Christ being the Cornerstone, it’s not an either/or as Protestants interpret it. Of which, your buddy Paul wasn’t one of the 12 Apostles…

[srich]

Min 1:29 “is rome’s basis for her dogma of papal succession”

Classic red-herring fallacy sir. The bible itself did not come into being before the church the church came before the bible. Therefore to say something from the bible is a basis for something that was in existence before is quit silly. 🤦‍♂

The question you should be asking yourself is how, when, why, where did the bible canon (27 books NT specifically) come into being? Once you REALIZE the historical facts of this and then look at the implications surrounding it, you MAY change your view point. Just maybe. 🤷🏽‍♂