G
Gamera
Guest
Amen!!! Great, you agree with us Catholics on all these points.
- Status
V
Verita
Guest
It seems to me that you are assuming that the word “this” from verse 17 (for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven) is referring to the same subject as the word “this” in verse 18 (and on this rock I will build my church). Yet the two are in separate sentences. In verse 18 (And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.) in the first clause of the sentence there is only one subject designated by the word “you” and the name “Peter”. In the following clause the word “this” must refer to that subject. It cannot refer to something in the previous sentence. To use it that way purposefully would be completely misleading.Yet nowhere in the text does Jesus say to Peter, "upon you I will build My church, but “upon this rock,” the divine revelation concerning Himself, I will build My church (cf. Eph. 2:20).
So simple.
I understand why it would confuse people. Why doesn’t Jesus just say “you” again so that it would read “And I tell you that you are Peter, and upon you I will build my church.” I think a good explanation would be that Jesus was trying to distinguish between the “man” Peter, who would continue to sin and make serious mistakes, and his “authority” as Peter. To show that though he was just a man, and a sinner, he would go on to fulfill a role that is much greater than he is.
A
apophasis
Guest
Yes, this is an interesting observation: In Rom. 9:33 petra refers to Christ, as does 1 Cor. 10:4. And even Peter refers to Christ as the “petra” of offence in his Epistle (1 Pet. 2:8).
Nowhere is the word “petra” ever used in association with Peter. And in studying the N.T. I cannot find any indication that the other Apostles understood Jesus’ words in Matt. 16:18 as meaning the “supremacy of Peter.” Certainly Paul did not.
I must conclude that the doctrine of the “supremacy of Peter” is uniquely Roman.
D
DanteAlighieri
Guest
Ok, so you’re saying that JesusYet nowhere in the text does Jesus say to Peter, "upon you I will build My church, but “upon this rock,” the divine revelation concerning Himself, I will build My church (cf. Eph. 2:20).
So simple.
- praises and blesses Peter for recognizing that Jesus is the Son of God, then
- says that he (Jesus) will build a church with **himself **as the cornerstone, but still
- gives Peter the keys to heaven and the authority to bind and loose things in heaven and on earth.
I refer you to the article linked above on CA. In addition to explaining the translation issue regarding the name of Peter, it also points out that the structure of the narrative clearly indicates that Christ is blessing Peter and giving him authority to lead the Church on earth. Your interpretation ignores the context in which the two lines you quoted appear.
I also reiterate what someone else pointed out: the cornerstone is not the same as the foundation. Furthermore, the cornerstone is the first piece of the structure to be put in place – much as Peter was.
Peace,
Dante
T
TNT
Guest
So simple is that you disagree with all the best protestant scholars on the matter…which puts your INTERPRETATION at a far distance from Freedom of ANY possibility of error. Or, are you telling us that your Interpretation of what is meant, the INFALLIBLE one. If so, tell us straight out.Yet nowhere in the text does Jesus say to Peter, "upon you I will build My church, but “upon this rock,” the divine revelation concerning Himself, I will build My church (cf. Eph. 2:20).
So simple.
He didn’t say “upon you” because the “ROCK” is as well an office of His Church and would also go to those who succeeded Kephas in building the Church, which of course they did.
If He just used YOU then the protestant would of course declare it was ONLY Kephas, and it DIED there when he died.
That Jesus was pretty savy. Maybe, just maybe He saw the protestants coming.
T
Trento
Guest
The Early Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter and we know at the time they relied on Tradition so when in the year 200 “Tertullian says Peter who is called Rock” he diden’t just come up with the idea. It was passed down through Tradition.
and as the following passages show.
Tertullian
Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the Church would be built [Matt. 16:18] with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth [Matt. 16:19]? (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
The Clementine Homilies
[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18] (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
The Letter of Clement to James 90 AD
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter (Letter of Clement to James 2 A.D. 221])
Origen
Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? “Oh you of little faith,” he says, “why do you doubt?” [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 A.D. 248]).
Cyprian
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .” [Matt. 16:18–19] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
Cyprian
There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]). *
S
Sean_Boyle
Guest
Oh really?! Your opinion is simply not true.
Paul had to go to Peter and the apostles to learn the faith and to be accepted as an apostle.
If Paul was acting on his own authority, he would have just started preaching without seeking the acceptance into the Catholic Church from the apostles first.
Thankfully, Paul choose to do God’s will and became part of the Catholic Church.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Here are four passages all using the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name:
*]John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
John 1:41-43 (in Context) John 1 (Whole Chapter)
*]1 Corinthians 1:12
What I mean is this: One of you says, “I follow Paul”; another, “I follow Apollos”; another, "I follow Cephas "; still another, “I follow Christ.”
1 Corinthians 1:11-13 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 1 (Whole Chapter)
*]1 Corinthians 3:22
whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours,
1 Corinthians 3:21-23 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 3 (Whole Chapter)
*]1 Corinthians 9:5
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas ?
1 Corinthians 9:4-6 (in Context) 1 Corinthians 9 (Whole Chapter)
Matthew was probably written in Aramaic and later translated into Greek, but either way…everyone recognized his Aramaic name “Kepha” or “Cephas”.
And this word does NOT mean “little pebble”.
Hebrew > Greek > English
Cephas > Petros > Peter
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
You might want to consult the following:
PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER AS THE ROCK
R.T. France
Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.
(R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, General editor, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)
D.A. Carson
On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .
(D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. editor, Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984, vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke {Matthew: D.A. Carson}, 368)
William F. Albright
In view of the background of verse 19 . . . one must dismiss as confessional interpretation * any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession of Peter* . . . The general sense of the passage is indisputable . . . Peter is the rock on which the new community will be built, and in that community, Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.
(William F. Albright [Methodist] and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, vol. 26, 195, 197-198)
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
J.D. Douglas
. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.
(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)
D.W. O’Connor
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, “Peter,” Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
D. Guthrie & J.A. Motyer
Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.
(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as *The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
Robert McAfee Brown
Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the ‘rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.
(Robert McAfee Brown, in McCord, Peter J., editor, A Pope For All Christians?, New York: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7. This book is an ecumenical project offering views on the papacy from many perspectives. Brown is a Presbyterian and very prominent ecumenist)
Raymond E. Brown, et. al.
Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of ‘Kepha’/‘kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference ‘Petros’/‘petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . . ; K. Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p. 787.
(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House / New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 92-93. This is probably the most important ecumenical work on Peter, and is thus cited first in a long bibliography in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)
(cont.)
. . . That the rock is Peter himself . . . is found almost as early as the other [interpretation], for Tertullian and the bishop, whether Roman or Carthaginian, against whom he thundered in De Pudicitia, assume this, though with different inferences. Its strength lies in the fact that Mt 16:19 is in the singular, and must be addressed directly to Peter . . . Many Protestant interpreters, including notably Cullmann, take the latter view.
(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 972)
D.W. O’Connor
Though in the past some authorities have considered that the term rock refers to Jesus himself or to Peter’s faith, the consensus of the great majority of scholars today is that the most obvious and traditional understanding should be construed, namely, that rock refers to the person of Peter.
(Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1985 edition, “Peter,” Micropedia, vol. 9, 330-333. D. W. O’Connor, the author of the article, is himself Protestant and author of Peter in Rome: The Literary, Liturgical and Archaeological Evidence [1969] )
D. Guthrie & J.A. Motyer
Some interpreters have . . . referred to Jesus as the rock here, but the context is against this. Nor is it likely that Peter’s faith or Peter’s confession is meant. It is undoubtedly Peter himself who is to be the rock, but Peter confessing, faithful and obedient . . . The leading role which Peter played is shown throughout the early chapters of Acts.
(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as *The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)
Robert McAfee Brown
Protestants are learning that the crucial passage in Matthew 16 about the ‘rock’ on which the church will be built almost certainly refers to Peter himself rather than to his faith.
(Robert McAfee Brown, in McCord, Peter J., editor, A Pope For All Christians?, New York: Paulist Press, 1976, Introduction, 7. This book is an ecumenical project offering views on the papacy from many perspectives. Brown is a Presbyterian and very prominent ecumenist)
Raymond E. Brown, et. al.
Precisely because of the Aramaic identity of ‘Kepha’/‘kepha’, there can be no doubt that the rock on which the church was to be built was Peter. Is this true also for Matthew in whose Greek there is the slight difference ‘Petros’/‘petra’? Probably the most common view would be that it is . . . It would be pointless to list all the commentaries holding this view, but it is found in [a] popular one-volume commentary . . . ; K. Stendahl in Peake’s Commentary on the Bible (2nd rev. ed.; London: Nelson, 1962), p. 787.
(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House / New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 92-93. This is probably the most important ecumenical work on Peter, and is thus cited first in a long bibliography in the Encyclopedia Britannica. It is a common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Marvin Vincent (Protestant Greek Scholar)
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . . . . .
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.
(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92; emphasis in original
+++
Yes, these are all PROTESTANT scholars who acknowledge that PETER is the ROCK.
:clapping: :extrahappy::dancing:
The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter’s confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: “On this rock will I build.” Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ’s church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .
Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon’s confession. Both the play upon the words and the natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors – living men . . . . . .
The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15; 2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18.
(Word Studies in the New Testament, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946 [orig. 1887], 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92; emphasis in original
+++
Yes, these are all PROTESTANT scholars who acknowledge that PETER is the ROCK.
:clapping: :extrahappy::dancing:
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Consider the following:
Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter**(“http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=55&chapter=1&version=31&context=chapter#fen-NIV-29060b”)] and stayed with him fifteen days. 19I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18-19)
Who did Paul go to see in Jerusalem? Peter.
How long did he stay with him? Fifteen days.
Did he see anyone else? Only James.
Guess he didn’t think it was important to chat with anyone else.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
B
Bishopite
Guest
Yes so simple. Jesus said “you are kepha and upon this kepha I will build My Church.” Did you know kepha means Rock? The “this” is Peter the Rock.Yet nowhere in the text does Jesus say to Peter, "upon you I will build My church, but “upon this rock,” the divine revelation concerning Himself, I will build My church (cf. Eph. 2:20).
So simple.
A
Atemi
Guest
Many fathers identified the petra of Matthew to be Christ or the confession itself. They did not ignore “Tradition” to believe and teach thus, nor did they “just come up with the idea.”
The fact remains that the early fathers all had different opinions: some for Peter, some for Christ, and some for the confession.
The vast majority, it must be remembered, never used the modern Roman Catholic interpretation or apologetic to these verses and never applied them to any papacy.
This is extrememly revelant and important to recognize. If we do not, then we start to cherry-pick the clear teachings of the ECFs to only quote the ones that may seem to agree with us.
This really should not be acceptable to any of us.
A
Atemi
Guest
Scripture is clear that no such thing happened.
Actually, just the opposite occured.
Paul made plain that he learned the faith from God alone, not from any men.
Gal 1:11 “But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.”
He also was teaching the faith three years before he ever met the Apostles. He did this on purpose:
Gal 1:15 “But when it pleased God…to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me”
Paul went to Jerusalem to announce and demonstrate that he was an Apostle, not so he would be accepted as one.
God made Paul His Apostle. The other Apostles had no say. Even Peter.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And many of the best Protestant scholars have identified Peter specifically as the Rock. Anything else is intellectually dishonest.
As for the Fathers, none of them were infallible. Some of them may not have had the proper vocabulary (or even the correct understanding) to express himself properly. However, the Church listens to all her sons and discerns the proper course to follow because she IS infallible.
Additionally, the Fathers have no problem with a “both-and” approach whereas modern Protestantism insists upon an “either-or” resolution to this discussion.
Peter was the rock, his faith was the rock, his confession was the rock, Jesus was the rock. We’re comfortable with all of these descriptions because none of the latter ones detract from the primacy and power of the first one.
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
T
Tomster
Guest
St. Peter, the founder of the Roman Church, was looked upon by writers as the first, the leader, the corypheus of the Apostolic College. True, the word “rock” in Matthew 16:18 was not always referred to the person of the Apostle. Cyril applies it to Christ; Cyril, Theodoret and Isidore of Pelusium, to the faith of St. Peter, solid as a rock, upon which the Church is built. But the term is also applied to the person of the Apostle. Thus the same St. Cyril says that Simon was given the name of Peter, "because Christ intended to found His Church upon him. St. Maximus the Confessor expresses himself in a similar manner. St. Cyril confirms this interpretation in his commentary on the phrase: “Confirma fratres tuos:” “Be the solid foundation and teacher of those who belong to me through faith.”
In his 11th letter to Pope Celestine, St. Cyril, himself a patriarch, does not call him “brother,” but “father,” and adds that he - Cyril - felt himself bound by a long standing custom to acquaint the Pope on cases such as that regarding Nestorianism, and consult him before taking any action.
A
Atemi
Guest
And many Protestant scholars believe that Christ or the confession is the petra…just like the early church fathers.
As non-Catholics we have the liberty to study God’s Word deeply and come to orthodox conclusions.
Just like the vast majority early fathers, these non-Catholic scholars do not, in any way, apply this verse to support any papacy in Rome.
Of course not.
No one claimed they are, and such an idea is irrelevant to the point.
I don’t think any of us should pursue tearing down the intellect or understanding of the early fathers so as to discredit their overwhelming witness.
They were the Magisterium of this church you speak of. They listened and they spoke what she told them.
A
Atemi
Guest
Yes. Many different (and orthodox) opinions. Hopefully this clears up any confusion in the OP regarding the ECFs on this matter.
None of those fathers you mentioned, however, applied these verses in reference to the Roman bishop or any papacy.
Yes. Cyril seemed to think the petra of the verse referred to Christ or the confession. Roman Catholic historian Michael Winter observed this:
"Cyril of Alexandria’s theology on the question of St. Peter resembles closely that of the Antiochean fathers. The life work of St. Cyril, for which he is renowned in the church, was his upholding of the orthodox faith against Nestorius, principally at the Council of Ephesus in 431. This preoccupation with Christological questions influenced his exegesis of the text of Matthew 16 in a manner which is reminiscent of the earliest fathers who were writing against Gnosticism. Although he alludes frequently to the text, it is the Christological application which interests him and the resultant picture of St. Peter is inconclusive. For instance when, commenting on the passage he writes: ‘Then he also names another honour: “Upon this rock I will build my church; and to thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Observe how he summarily manifests Himself Lord of heaven and earth for. . . He promises to found the church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. Then He says, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Neither an angel nor any other spiritual being is able to speak thus.’
The application to Peter of the title ‘shepherd’ is deceptive, since he applies it elsewhere to all the Apostles and it cannot therefore indicate a peculiar authority for Peter. It seems to have been his consistent opinion that the ‘rock–foundation’ of the church was Peter’s immovable faith. Although it seems a small matter to distinguish Peter’s faith from his person in the function of being the foundation of the church, it does appear that Cyril did, in fact, isolate St. Peter himself for that role and in this respect he is at one with the later Antiocheans…The school of Antioch (and those who were influenced by it) presents a conflicting set of opinions. St Chrysostom and some followers uphold the primacy of St. Peter, while St. Cyril of Alexandria and others deny it (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 74-76).
M
Mannyfit75
Guest
Atemi,
Just to give you a heads up, you have to provide the link of your source. The Rule states that we should source the information. It’s also in the forum rules.
- Status