So Peters the rock Christ builds his church on

but how does that give Catholicism its right think its all holy church?

its more incline to hold tradition then religion?

 

Jesus was speaking to Peter but he was saying that the "church" would be built on himself, Jesus, not on Peter.

 

But why do they declare him the first popw? The bible has no support of how to even elect or process the becoming of a pope. So how is he the first.

 

because he founded the church in rome and was bishop, then martyr there, As catholic tradition would have it.

 

You'd have to ask them that.

 

I believe, Jesus was telling all believers that we are the church the christians , the church of the living God. be peacemakers and moral and just believers and good examples to a lost and dieing world. He is the Christ the son of the Living God.

 

I think it's because the Catholics were the first universal and powerful Church.

 

Tradition as defined by the Church is things that have always been taught from the apostles until today. So yeah, we hold to Tradition, while traditions change...

If you accept that Peter is the Rock, and that Christ did not want the office of apostleship to die out after the 1st Century, then the office given to Peter continues (as it does for all the apostles).

Only one Church recognizes Peter's unique office.

 

Well, if Jesus is the "Rock-mass" the congregation is built on and not Peter, then being the only church to recognize Peter's "unique office" would not recommend that church.

Also Jesus was not always real happy with religious traditions. (Mark 7:13)

 

Mark 7:13

 

Two kinds of tradition/Tradition:

With a capital 'T', it properly refers to the apostolic teaching, handed down through 2 millenniums from the very 12 (plus Paul). The Second Vatican Council document Dei Verbum states:
"Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. To the successors of the apostles, sacred Tradition hands on in its full purity God’s word, which was entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit.
Thus, by the light of the Spirit of truth, these successors can in their preaching preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred Tradition and sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same devotion and reverence."
Scripture canon itself is sacred Tradition, being finalized in the late 4th century and only reaffirmed once the Reformation started cutting the text apart.

Sacred Tradition is different from traditions, which generally can be called temporal, and contextual styles. Vestments, church decoration, even most of the text of the Mass fall into this second category. Sacred Tradition, on the other hand, has been held always, everywhere and by all. (All until the 1500s roughly, with the exception of heretical pockets that popped up). Without Sacred Tradition, the Scriptures cannot be reliably interpreted. Look at the thousands of heretical ideas and "one man shows". Tradition cannot change--it can develop--but not change; traditions can and will change.

Sacred Tradition: Transubstantiation



Contextual traditions: Vestments (also liturgical externals)



As a Catholic I believe that the traditions of the Church have value to build culture, just as you would likely agree the traditions of your sect have value in that they build the culture through recognizable symbols.

 

jmt's post implied that it was Peter that Christ was speaking about in the "on this Rock" discourse and from that I gave my response.

I know you think Christ changes what he refers to mid-statement in a strange rhetorical pronouncement, "Peter you are Rock/Pebble, and on this Rock-- but not that Rock I was just speaking about, a different Rock that has no introduction and in the context of this statement is very ambiguous to the point of nobody interpreting it this way for hundreds of years--I build my Church"

Riiiiiiiiiight...

 

Sorry, no recognizable symbols here.

 

The wording used is also used in common English, although it is not as common as it once was.

Jesus had just asked his disciples who be was and they replied "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God". Jesus then used Peter's name to get his attention and told him that on the fact that he was "the Christ, the Son of the living God" he would build the congregation.

 

Yep! That is pretty much what The Church teaches. "Petros" = "Rock"

 

To understand what the "rock" is, we simply need to look at what happened immediately before it.

Jesus:
"Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"

Disciples:
"Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets."

Jesus
"But who do you say that I am?"

Peter:
"You are the Christ, the Son of the living God".

Jesus:
"Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my church"

THAT is the rock: that no one of the world naturally has faith in Jesus, but Peter was given faith, not from himself, but from the Father by the Holy Spirit, to know that Jesus is the Son of God.

The church, therefore, is built upon the rock of faith, given by the grace of God, to believe in Jesus Christ.