Augustine, in his book of Retractions, says that this passage may be explained in multiple ways, and he left to his listeners to adopt the explanation that they prefer. For instance, this passage may be expounded such that the words this rock signify Christ; “And the rock was Christ” (I Cor. 10, 4). And elsewhere, it is written: “Another foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus” (ibid. 3, 11). There is another exposition: Upon this rock, meaning upon you who are a rock, because you yourself draw from me that you are a rock. And just as I am a rock, so upon you who are a rock I will build my Church, etc. But what is this? Are both Christ and Peter the foundation? It must be answered that Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation, but Peter is the foundation insofar as he confesses Christ, and insofar as he is His vicar. “Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone,” etc., (Eph. 2, 20). “There are twelve foundations of the city: And in them, the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Apoc. 21, 14). Christ, in and of Himself, is the foundation; but the Apostles, not in and of themselves but through Christ’s delegation, and through the authority given them by Christ, are foundations as well; “The foundations thereof are the holy mountains” (Ps. 86, 1). But Peter’s house especially, which was founded upon the rock, shall not be demolished, as said above in chapter 7.22 Thus, this house can be assaulted, but it cannot be conquered.
There are even Catholic biblical scholars and theologians who are claiming the entire verse was added after Matthew’s writing the gospel, and are not original. Any one ever heard something similar? Any thoughts?I just purchased the commentary of St. Thomas Aquinas on Matthew, not the Catena Aurea but his commentary, and I thought I’d share a quote by him on that debated passage. The commentary is on Amazon now, I highly recommend it!
No. Not even from the most virulent anti-Catholic “scholars” have I remotely heard such. I can’t begin to see any justification for that. I mean, why did Jesus change his name to “Rock”?There are even Catholic biblical scholars and theologians who are claiming the entire verse was added after Matthew’s writing the gospel, and are not original. Any one ever heard something similar? Any thoughts?
Never heard of it, but does not surprise me that some anti-catholic would come up with something so ridiculous.There are even Catholic biblical scholars and theologians who are claiming the entire verse was added after Matthew’s writing the gospel, and are not original. Any one ever heard something similar? Any thoughts?
I agree with the other posters, plus the Gospel of John mentions it as well.John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).There are even Catholic biblical scholars and theologians who are claiming the entire verse was added after Matthew’s writing the gospel, and are not original. Any one ever heard something similar? Any thoughts?