Kurieuo wrote:Whatever translation of Matt 16:18 regarding Peter being a/the rock, it still does not follow that the RCC has any authority if Peter was "the" rock.
Well, if Peter was "the" rock appointed by Christ himself (and a very good case I believe is made to that end), and if Peter appointed a successor and that successor appointed another, and another, and that lineage is traced up to the present age in the papacy then it certainly follows that the RCC still carries Christ's authority on earth.
Kurieuo wrote:1. Peter was not in Rome
Was Peter in Rome?
Peter's Roman Residency
Kurieuo wrote:2. Peter did not start the RCC
See response above.
Kurieuo wrote:3. Scripture does not state he was supreme over the other apostles - in fact, Paul disputed Peter
Even if Paul disputed Peter, it doesn't mean he wasn't regarded as chief among them.
Peter's Primacy.
This Rock - of particular interest is the following:
The chief theological principle running through all of these statements is the primacy of Peter and his position as the unifying leader of all Christendom. Few Catholic doctrines attract more critical attention than the primacy of Peter, and thus of his successor, the pope. But the scriptural and historical evidence in support of this belief is incontestable. Scriptural confirmation of Peter's primacy begins with John 1:42, wherein Christ first meets him and says, "You are Simon, the son of John; you shall be called Cephas." That is, Christ, who spoke to him in Aramaic, called Peter "Cephas" (or "Kepha"), which means "stone" or "rock." Christ had a special distinction in mind for Peter: Why else would he have given him a name never used at that time? While the other apostles enjoy significant charisms (charismata), none are singled out as Peter repeatedly is:
* Peter receives the first converts into the Church (Acts 2:41).
* Peter imposes the first ecclesiastical punishment (Acts 5:1).
* Peter performs the first miracle (Acts 3:1).
* Peter makes the first official ecclesiastical visit (Acts 9:32).
* Peter rendered the first dogmatic decision in the Church (Acts 15:7). It was Peter who, among the gathered apostles and presbyters, rendered the final decision regarding whether circumcision is necessary for salvation.
Kurieuo wrote:4. Nor was the RCC the only Christian church who could trace themselves back to the apostles. Montanists, for example, perhaps very much likened to Christian Pentecostals, also could.
Perhaps not but if the above claims are true it would make it the only church with a direct mandate from Christ and the only church with the promise of guidance by the Holy Spirit (i.e. infallibility).
Kurieuo wrote:Furthermore, if Christ is the chief cornerstone upon which the Church is built, then what of Peter being the rock on which Christ builds his Church? I don't think giving up this entitled position is something Christ could do. To do so is to set the Church itself is built upon foundations as fickle as man and as such someone unworthy. There is only One person who fits the following Scripture:
- 6 For this is contained in Scripture:
“Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious corner stone,
And he who believes in Him will not be disappointed.”
7 This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for those who disbelieve,
“The stone which the builders rejected,
This became the very corner stone,” (1 Peter 2:6-7)
Christ is the corner stone of salvation, without whom there can be no hope. But Christ is not physically here with us so he established a visible church to 1) administer to the faithful and, most importantly, 2) execute the great commission. The church is the visible part of Christ's primacy. She is his bride, not his substitute.
Kurieuo wrote:Anyway, I will let you respond with the last say. I'm happy to agree to disagree.
And I'm happy to answer such questions when they come up. We can disagree on many things but I know we do at least agree on the highlighted above.
I was expecting you to drop in. 
