Norman Geisler provides the same old boring arguments against the Papacy. Read how Art Sippo easily dispenses with them. Geisler's comments are in purple. Sippo responds in blue.
Solution: There are different ways to understand this passage, but none of them support the Roman Catholic view that the church is built on St. Peter
Funny. That is not how the Historic Church understood this passage. It is Protestants who want to disobey the Popes who have to deny the LITERAL meaning of the text.
I would also refer you to "A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew" (The International Critical Commentary by Protestant scholars Dale C. Allison & W. D. Davies). After looking at 10 different proposed ways of interpreting the text, they agree that the PAPAL understanding as applying to St. Peter's authority is the most correct one.
First of all, Peter was married (Matt.8: 14), and Popes do not marry. If the first Pope could marry, why later pronounce that no priest (or Pope) can marry.
Marriage is not a qualification for this job, especially in light of Jesus' telling the Apostles that they must leave behind "mother, father, wife, and children" for His sake. Also read MATT 19, 9ff and 1Cor 7.
Second, Peter was not infallible in his views on the Christian life. Even Paul had to rebuke him for his hypocrisy, because he was not "straightforward about the truth of the Gospel."
No one ever claimed that St. Peter was infallible "in his views on the Christian life." He was infallible when "no man on Earth has taught you this but my Father in heaven." This is limited to teaching the universal Church on matters of faith and morals. St. Peter and his successors are entitled to be personally wrong about their "views" on the Christian life.
As to the conflict between St. Paul and St. Peter in Galatians (NOT in 1 Cor as Geisler asserts) , I believe that St. Peter was right in his pastoral decision while St. Paul was correctly (but irrelevantly) arguing about principles. While there were no DOCTRINAL reasons for not eating with the Gentiles in Antioch, there were many PASTORAL ones. St. Paul just didn't get it.
Third, the Bible clearly declares that Christ is the foundation of the Christian church, insisting that "no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor.3: 11).
Geisler then contradicts himself in the very next objection saying that ALL of the Apostles have foundational roles:
Fourth, the only sense in which Peter had foundational role in the church, all the other apostles shared in the same way. Peter was not unique in this respect. For Paul declared that in this sense the church is "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" (Eph.2: 20). Indeed, the early church continued steadfastly in the apostles' doctrine [not just Peter's]" (Acts 2: 42).
Now if Jesus is the ONLY foundation, then Scripture has contradicted itself because St. Paul says that ALL of the Apostles are foundations too. Geisler can't have it both ways.
Besides, if Jesus says that St. Peter is the Rock upon which the Church is built and the Gates of Hell will never prevail against IT (NOT "against you, Peter, alone") it implies that the ministry given to St. Peter is meant to last forever and not to stop with him. There is no mention of foundation here. There is mention of solid grounding upon which the Church will be steadfastly established. To interject the 'foundation' analogy here is to mix metaphors.
Even "keys of the kingdom" given to Peter (Matt. 16:19) were also given to all the apostles (cf. Matt. 18:18).
You know, I don't believe that prots actually read their Bibles. Matthew 18,18 says nothing about keys. Those are give ONLY to St. Peter in Matthew 16,18. Matthew 18,18 does extend the power of binding and loosing to the Apostles as a whole, but it does so AFTER it had been give to St. Peter alone. In biblical idiom, this is an indication that St. Peter has primacy over the other Apostles.
Fifth, there is no indication that Peter was the head of the early church.
St. Peter is always named first in the lists of all the Apostles (with the exception of Galatians when St. Paul is trying to belittle him). St. Peter is allowed by St. John to enter the tomb first in John's Gospel as a sign of his authority. St. Peter commands that it is time to replace Judas among the 12. He is the first to have table fellowship with the Gentiles. When Paul comes to Jerusalem, St. Barnabas arranges for him to see St. Peter first before the other Apostles
When the first council was held at Jerusalem, Peter played only an introductory role (Acts 15:6-11). James seems to have a more significant position, summing up the conference and making the final pronouncement (cf. Acts 15:13-21).
NO, Normy, St. Peter is the one who sums up the position taken by the Church. After he speaks everyone is silent and then St. James as the leader of the opposition party capitulates and sets his terms.
In any event, Peter is never referred to as the "pillar" in the church. Rather, Paul speaks of "pillars" (plural), such as, "James, Cephas, and John" (Gal. 2:9). Peter (Cephas) is not even listed first among the pillars.
This is done as a deliberate slight to St. Peter since Paul is trying to belittle him. Besides, the terms "pillars" are irrelevant to our discussion about authority. These three were the Apostles closest to Christ in the Gospels and that is probably what is being referred to. Nevertheless, John submits to Peter at the Tomb.
Sixth, many Protestant interpreters believe that Jesus' reference to "this rock" (Matt. 16:18) upon which His church would be built was to Peter's solid (rock-like) testimony that Jesus was "the Christ, the son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16).
Yeah, and many Nazis insisted that Christ wasn't Jewish too. So what? Protestants have a vested interest in denying the authority of the Popes. Consequently, their opinions opposing the clear literal meaning of the text are irrelevant.
In this passage, St. Peter is the Rock, not Christ.
But even if this rock has reference to Peter (Petros, rock), which is certainly a possible interpretation, he was only a rock in the apostolic foundation of the church (Matt. 16:18), not the rock. Nor is he the only apostolic rock. Even Peter himself admitted that Christ is the chief rock ("cornerstone," 1 Peter 2:7). And Paul notes that the other apostles are all part of the "foundation" (Eph. 2:20).
A "chief rock" still leaves room for other rocks, doesn't it? In John 10, Jesus says that he is the Good Shepherd and that there will be one fold and ONE shepherd. In John 21, he then tells St. Peter 3 times to care for His sheep. While Jesus may be our divine shepherd, when He left the earth He left St. Peter as his vicarious shepherd to the ONE flock.
Art Sippo
The Catholic Legate