Bringing you the "Good News" of Jesus Christ and His Church While PROMOTING CATHOLIC Apologetic Support groups loyal to the Holy Father and Church's magisterium
Home About
What's New? Resources The Church Family Life Mass and
Ask A Catholic
Knowledge base
AskACatholic Disclaimer
Search the
AskACatholic Database
Donate and
Support our work
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
New Questions
Cool Catholic Videos
About Saints
Disciplines & Practices for distinct Church seasons
Purgatory and Indulgences
About the Holy Mass
About Mary
Searching and Confused
Contemplating becoming a Catholic or Coming home
Homosexual and Gender Issues
Life and Family
No Salvation Outside the Church
Sacred Scripture
non-Catholic Cults
Justification and Salvation
The Pope and Papacy
The Sacraments
Relationships and Marriage situations
Specific people, organizations and events
Doctrine and Teachings
Specific Practices
Church Internals
Church History

Sophia Ilongga wrote:
Hi, guys —

I am a Catholic and I have always encountered Protestants who use Greek in their arguments so I can't justify my knowledge in English using Matthew 16:18, John 1:42, and John 21:15-17.

I believe you are knowledgeable in Greek and can help me with the appropriate Greek analysis and grammar to refute their arguments.

Here's the question.

  • If Catholics from the Pope to the defenders of the Church know Greek, why are they teaching that the rock (petra in the Greek language) where the True Church was built, is Peter or petros?

Apparently a primary word that means a (piece of) rock; as a name, Petrus, the Apostle.

Is the feminine form of the same word Petros is a (mass of) rock, literally or figuratively.

Peter or petros was never the foundation of the true Church! There is no other foundation other than the petra: a rock mass, (not a piece of rock: petros,) which is the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please help me with a proper Catholic reply.


Sophia Ilongga

  { Can you help me explain the use and relevancy of Petra and petros to my Protestant friends? }

Bob replied:


My name is Robert, in other languages it would become Roberto. That is because I am male. You wouldn't call me Roberta because that is feminine, so the author could not use Petra for the name directly without creating an embarrassing misuse of the name. The use of Petra in the opposite place could convey the sense of the massive boulder associated with the location of the profession by Peter as a metaphor. That said, all of this really is quite beside the point.

The actual conversation they had was is Aramaic and Simon became kephas in Aramaic, as you will note in the gospel of John and Paul's letters.

The whole argument the Protestants have created doesn't exist because the conversation never happened in Greek. So, this intent they ascribe to Jesus to distinguish Peter from Himself is contrived. The actual point of the real conversation does the opposite.

Jesus gives Simon a new name, Peter, just like God gives all of the important figures in the Old Testament new names when He establishes a New Covenant with them. This covenant, identifies Simon with Jesus Himself who is the Rock.

Then, Jesus gives him the keys, which are a symbol of His own Authority, so that Peter may act in his stead. There is no getting around the significance of what happened between Jesus and Peter. Protestants don't want to except it because they don't want to except the Pope.


Bob Kirby
[Related posting]

Please report any and all typos or grammatical errors.
Suggestions for this web page and the web site can be sent to Mike Humphrey
© 2012 Panoramic Sites
The Early Church Fathers Church Fathers on the Primacy of Peter. The Early Church Fathers on the Catholic Church and the term Catholic. The Early Church Fathers on the importance of the Roman Catholic Church centered in Rome.