Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[Rohzek]

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

Any teacher of grammar will tell you that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.

Did Christ change any of the other Apostles names? This changing of names follows a very important pattern in scripture – Abram (father) became Abraham (father of many nations). Jacob (He who grasps the heel) became Israel (Ruling with God) when his mission was changed when he become the father of 12 tribes of the nation of Israel. Notice carefully that Abraham and Jacob became leaders and fathers following their name change. ** A male name change in the bible indicates leadership** and fatherhood.

The word “rock” also has special significance. On one hand, to be called “rock” was a Semitic expression designating the solid foundation upon which a community would be built. For instance, Abraham was considered “rock” because he was the father of the Jewish people (and we refer to him as our father in faith) and the one with whom the covenant was first made.

Also, no one except God was called specifically “rock,” nor was it ever used as a proper name except for God. To give the name “rock” to St. Peter indicates that our Lord entrusted to him a special authority.

That’s not the Patristic understanding. truthseeker is in fact, correct in his assertion:

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/

 

[truthseeker32]

That’s not the Patristic understanding. truthseeker is in fact, correct in his assertion:

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/

Lol, I back up my arguments with Patristic quotations that they conveniently ignore, and they reply with worn-out Catholic apologetic tracts. I think I will stick with the Fathers.

 

[Abu]

Note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the Church. In about 80 A.D., the Church at Corinth deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I, was called to settle the matter even though St. John the Apostle was still alive and much closer to Corinth than was Rome. Tradition shows Pope St Clement exercising his primacy in about 96, on a matter of schism in the Church of Corinth. Of the same generation as Saints Peter and Paul and when St John the Apostle was probably still living in Ephesus, Pope Clement wrote as one commanding to the Church of Corinth in Greece: “If any disobey what He (Christ) says through us, let them know that they will be involved in no small offence and danger, but we shall be innocent of this sin.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1) This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

If a few Early Church Fathers were uncertain in their expression of Peter’s Papacy, this fails to refute Christ’s emphatic expression of giving Peter Primacy…

St Irenaeus, Cyprian of Carthage, Eusebius of Caesarea, Ambrose of Milan and Tertullian, support Peter’s Papacy.

Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The Primacy of The Vicar of Christ has never been disputed in Christ’s Church, from the beginning.

**St. Irenaeus **
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
**
Tertullian **
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (*Demurrer Against the Heretics *32:2 [A.D. 200]).
**
Cyprian of Carthage **
“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. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. 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. . . . If someone [today] 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; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

**Eusebius of Caesarea **
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

The recognition of the primacy, the assent displayed, is so evident that it is idle speculation, assumption, and denial of history that clouds the intellect and saps the understanding of every poster trying to deny this. It is only dissenters and schismatics that deny Christ in giving His authority to teach infallibly to His Supreme Vicar.

What matters are the facts; and the Early Church Fathers acknowledge Peter’s Papacy.
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

 

[Picky_Picky]

“You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”

Any teacher of grammar will tell you that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.
.

Any teacher of grammar who said that would be mistaken, I am afraid. It may be you are confusing determiners like “this” with pronouns like “him”. And even with pronouns it is not a rule of grammar, just an aid to comprehension when necessary. In the possible sentence “He is Peter, give this rock to him” the pronoun “him” does not refer to the rock — the nearest preceding noun — but to Peter.

The determiner “this” relates grammatically not to Peter but simply to “rock”. It is intended to determine which rock is being spoken of (this one). We cannot be sure what “this rock” is simply from the sentence structure — Jesus could have been pointing to himself, or to someone else, or his intonation may indicate something different. It seems to me certainly possible that the rock concerned is Peter, as your church teaches, and I’m not about to argue with her. But you can’t base that on grammar, I fear.

 

[Duane1966]

Any teacher of grammar who said that would be mistaken, I am afraid. It may be you are confusing determiners like “this” with pronouns like “him”. And even with pronouns it is not a rule of grammar, just an aid to comprehension when necessary. In the possible sentence “He is Peter, give this rock to him” the pronoun “him” does not refer to the rock — the nearest preceding noun — but to Peter.

The determiner “this” relates grammatically not to Peter but simply to “rock”. It is intended to determine which rock is being spoken of (this one). We cannot be sure what “this rock” is simply from the sentence structure — Jesus could have been pointing to himself, or to someone else, or his intonation may indicate something different. It seems to me certainly possible that the rock concerned is Peter, as your church teaches, and I’m not about to argue with her. But you can’t base that on grammar, I fear.

Now put your sentence in place of Matthew’s. You could say something ridiculous like: 'the him that is actually being referred to is this guy I mentioned two sentences earlier" which is what they try to do when they say the rock is Peter’s confession, or you could just as easily say something just as ridiculous like: “Jesus is actually pointing to give the rock to a different Apostle”, even though there is nothing in the sentence, or the preceding sentences to make you think that. No one in their right mind would ever think the two ridiculous conclusions that I just gave are legitimately what you are trying to relate to your audience, based on the sentence you gave, in any other scenario in life.

Picky, if you were relating a story to an audience, that was not a witness to the events you are describing, and wanted your audience to be clear on what you were relating, would you say:

A.) * You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church.*

If you actually wanted them to believe this:

B.) You are Cephas, and on your confession I will build my Church

Or this:

C.) You are Cephas, and then Jesus pointed to Himself and said: and on this Cephas I will build my Church.?

If Jesus was pointing to Himself, then Matthew did a poor job of relating the events.

Picky, if you were reading the gospels for the first time, with maybe just a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity, and no outside influences (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodoxy), can you honestly say that you would think Jesus was talking about Peter’s confession, or pointing to himself?

 

[josie_L]

Lol, I back up my arguments with Patristic quotations that they conveniently ignore, and they reply with worn-out Catholic apologetic tracts. I think I will stick with the Fathers.

There are many patristic quotes wherein Peter is the rock, and then there are others that state the rock refers to his confession, but then there are others that agree the rock refers to both and are inseparable.

St. John of Damascene:

"Peter’s faith is undoubtedly the unshakable rock upon which the Church rests, but this faith is not separable from PETER’S PERSON, it is indeed PETER is who is the ROCK.

One of my favourite quotes in reference to St. Peter is from St. Ephraem, the Syrian:

"And commenting on the Transfiguration he [Ephraem] speaks to Peter as "the Second Moses.’

"’ There were both the prince of the Old and the prince of the New Testament confronting one another. There, the saintly Moses beheld the sanctified Simon the Steward of the Father, the procurator of the Son. He who forced the sea asunder to let the people walk across the parted waves, beheld him who raised the new tabernacle and BUILT the Church.’

As a Catholic I have no problem believing that the rock refers to both his confession and the person of Peter because the two as St. John of Damascene stated are inseparable, so you might want to re-evaluate your position if you wish to stick to the Fathers.

p.s. And Scripture, by the way, should not be relegated to the wayside, i.e., in the Bible only three people are referred to as the rock: God, Abram, and Peter.

 

[josie_L]

Any teacher of grammar who said that would be mistaken, I am afraid. It may be you are confusing determiners like “this” with pronouns like “him”. And even with pronouns it is not a rule of grammar, just an aid to comprehension when necessary. In the possible sentence “He is Peter, give this rock to him” the pronoun “him” does not refer to the rock — the nearest preceding noun — but to Peter.

The determiner “this” relates grammatically not to Peter but simply to “rock”. It is intended to determine which rock is being spoken of (this one). We cannot be sure what “this rock” is simply from the sentence structure — Jesus could have been pointing to himself, or to someone else, or his intonation may indicate something different. It seems to me certainly possible that the rock concerned is Peter, as your church teaches, and I’m not about to argue with her. But you can’t base that on grammar, I fear.

Jesus was the rock, i.e, God was referred as such in the O.T., however, Peter is also rock:

St. Maximus of Turin (424 A.D.):

"This is Peter on who Christ freely bestowed a sharing in his name. For just as Christ is the rock, as the Apostle Paul taught, so through Christ Peter is made a rock, when the Lord says to him: “Thou are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.”

St. Peter Chrysologus, bishop of Ravenna (432 A.D.)

“Just as Peter received his name from the rock, because he was the first to deserve to establish the Church, by reason of his steadfastness of faith, so also (Pope) Stephen was named from a crown . . . . Let Peter hold his ancient primacy of the Apostolic choir. Let him bind the guilty with his power and absolve the penitent in kindness.”

"Of course, to be called Peter in other contexts is simply to be given a name, [but] in this case, it is a title of power, “Truly, blessed Peter, that immovable foundation of salvation, shows himself [to be] the sort of priest that those who desire priesthood [would] want to have seen.”

Even his name justifies the Catholic position, Cephas (Peter) means ROCK, and that name was given to him by Jesus when he first meets Simon Peter.

 

[Rohzek]

There are many patristic quotes wherein Peter is the rock, and then there are others that state the rock refers to his confession, but then there are others that agree the rock refers to both and are inseparable.

And Jerome would agree. Any faith cannot be separate from the person since the faith is an idea hence not a concrete entity. Again, I see no difference between Jerome’s position of it being a metaphor and John’s here. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Greek will oblige us with a translation of the full passage rather than just one simple line.

One of my favourite quotes in reference to St. Peter is from St. Ephraem, the Syrian:

Could you provide a fuller passage of the quote?

As a Catholic I have no problem believing that the rock refers to both his confession and the person of Peter because the two as St. John of Damascene stated are inseparable, so you might want to re-evaluate your position if you wish to stick to the Fathers.

As is the Orthodox position. You need to review what the Orthodox position is.

p.s. And Scripture, by the way, should not be relegated to the wayside, i.e., in the Bible only three people are referred to as the rock: God, Abram, and Peter.

Because turning to the Fathers really constitutes the neglect of scripture. Please.

Picky, if you were reading the gospels for the first time, with maybe just a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity, and no outside influences (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodoxy), can you honestly say that you would think Jesus was talking about Peter’s confession, or pointing to himself?

If you’re reading Jerome’s Vulgate, then yes you would think that because of the gender difference in the words.While the Fathers, particularly the Latin Fathers, acknowledged the play on words as metaphorically referring to Peter, they either considered the rock (petram) as referring either to Christ or to the confession of faith. The same principle applies to the Greek, the original language of the gospels.

Even his name justifies the Catholic position, Cephas (Peter) means ROCK, and that name was given to him by Jesus when he first meets Simon Peter.

It really doesn’t. The definitive Catholic argument, as per the Catechism, clearly rests on the name in conjunction with the bestowal of the keys. Countless Fathers and saints contradict this understanding by explicitly stating that the other apostles were later given the same keys.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Now put your sentence in place of Matthew’s. You could say something ridiculous like: 'the him that is actually being referred to is this guy I mentioned two sentences earlier" which is what they try to do when they say the rock is Peter’s confession, or you could just as easily say something just as ridiculous like: “Jesus is actually pointing to give the rock to a different Apostle”, even though there is nothing in the sentence, or the preceding sentences to make you think that. No one in their right mind would ever think the two ridiculous conclusions that I just gave are legitimately what you are trying to relate to your audience, based on the sentence you gave, in any other scenario in life.

Picky, if you were relating a story to an audience, that was not a witness to the events you are describing, and wanted your audience to be clear on what you were relating, would you say:

A.) * You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church.*

If you actually wanted them to believe this:

B.) You are Cephas, and on your confession I will build my Church

Or this:

C.) You are Cephas, and then Jesus pointed to Himself and said: and on this Cephas I will build my Church.?

If Jesus was pointing to Himself, then Matthew did a poor job of relating the events.

Picky, if you were reading the gospels for the first time, with maybe just a rudimentary knowledge of Christianity, and no outside influences (Catholic, Protestant, or Orthodoxy), can you honestly say that you would think Jesus was talking about Peter’s confession, or pointing to himself?

I don’t know that it’s possible to answer your last question. To start with, such an ignorant first-time reader would probably not know what “Peter” meant. For myself I know only that one could not make a correct decision based on your supposed grammatical rule, since such a rule does not exist. And I would not pass opinion myself without some skill in biblical exegesis, a knowledge of Aramaic, something rather better than my restaurant Greek, and an understanding of the conventions governing puns in first-century Palestine. And even then I might very well keep my opinion to myself in this place: the English language I feel equipped to talk about here; when there’s Christian doctrine on the table I am very careful.

 

[josie_L]

And Jerome would agree. Any faith cannot be separate from the person since the faith is an idea hence not a concrete entity. Again, I see no difference between Jerome’s position of it being a metaphor and John’s here. Perhaps someone with knowledge of Greek will oblige us with a translation of the full passage rather than just one simple line.

Do you mean to say that there is something that will contradict the above mentioned quote I posted?

Could you provide a fuller passage of the quote?

Sure: anastasis.org.uk/on_the_transfiguration.htm

And in other writings of St. Ephraem the Syrian:

“Hail! Peter, tongue of the disciples, voice of the preachers, eye of the apostles, guardian of heaven, FIRST-BORN of those who bear the keys!”

“Our Lord chose Simon Peter and appointed him chief of the apostles, foundation of the holy Church and guardian of his establishment. He appointed him head of the apostles and commanded him to feed his flock and teach it laws for preserving the purity of its beliefs.”

In another hymn he introduces the Lord Jesus speaking to his first vicar on earth:

**"Simon, my disciple, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I called you “rock” that you might sustain my entire building. You are the overseer of those who build a church for me on earth. If they should wish to build something forbidden, prevent them, for you are the foundation. You are the head of the fountain from which my doctrine is drawn. You are the head of my disciples. Through you all nations shall drink. Yours is that vivifying sweetness that I bestow. I have chosen you to be as a firstborn in my institution and heir to all my treasures. The keys of the kingdom I have given to you, and behold I make you prince over all my treasures."42 **

As is the Orthodox position. You need to review what the Orthodox position is.

So you believe that Peter is the ROCK as well?

Because turning to the Fathers really constitutes the neglect of scripture. Please.

From the way, you guys are arguing your point of view, yes!

If you’re reading Jerome’s Vulgate, then yes you would think that because of the gender difference in the words.While the Fathers, particularly the Latin Fathers, acknowledged the play on words as metaphorically referring to Peter, they either considered the rock (petram) as referring either to Christ or to the confession of faith. The same principle applies to the Greek, the original language of the gospels.

No, they refer to both Peter and his confession as the rock. Some have also referred to Christ, but others refer to both Christ and Peter, saying:

St. Ambrose, a Latin Father and doctor of the Church (385-389 A.D.):

Peter is called the ‘rock’ because, like an immovable rock, he sustains the joints and mass of the entire Christian edifice."

"Christ is the Rock, “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and HE DID NOT REFUSE TO BESTOW THE FAVOUR OF THIS TITLE EVEN UPON HIS DISCIPLE, SO THAT HE, TOO, MIGHT BE PETER [OR ROCK], IN THAT HE HAS FROM THE ROCK A SOLID CONSTANCY, A FIRM FAITH.”

And if I’m not mistaken wasn’t Matthew written originally in ARAMAIC, the language spoken by Christ and his Apostles!

It really doesn’t. The definitive Catholic argument, as per the Catechism, clearly rests on the name in conjunction with the bestowal of the keys. Countless Fathers and saints contradict this understanding by explicitly stating that the other apostles were later given the same keys.

Yes, they were given the keys too, but the Catechism does not deny this, moreover, it is that Peter is bestowed with the keys (first) by Jesus with the avowal that he is the rock upon which the Church would be built. This alone differentiates him from the other apostles, i.e., Jesus is highlighting a uniqueness that Peter possesses in bestowing the keys in the manner he did. He is as quite of few of the fathers, state, the First-born of the Church.

Peter/Cephas is the ROCK.

John 1: 41-42

He first found his brother Simon and said to Him, ‘We have found the Messiah’ (which translated Anointed). He brought Simon to Jesus, who looked at him and said, ‘You are Simon son of John. YOU ARE TO BE CALLED CEPHAS’ (which is translated Peter).

 

[Duane1966]

I don’t know that it’s possible to answer your last question. To start with, such an ignorant first-time reader would probably not know what “Peter” meant. For myself I know only that one could not make a correct decision based on your supposed grammatical rule, since such a rule does not exist. And I would not pass opinion myself without some skill in biblical exegesis, a knowledge of Aramaic, something rather better than my restaurant Greek, and an understanding of the conventions governing puns in first-century Palestine. And even then I might very well keep my opinion to myself in this place: the English language I feel equipped to talk about here; when there’s Christian doctrine on the table I am very careful.

Fair enough. But do you find these as legitimate conclusions to the sentence you posted earlier?

Now put your sentence in place of Matthew’s. You could say something like: 'the him that is actually being referred to is this guy I mentioned two sentences earlier" which is what they try to do when they say the rock is Peter’s confession, or you could just as easily say something just like: “Jesus is actually pointing to give the rock to a different Apostle”, even though there is nothing in the sentence, or the preceding sentences to make you think that.

Picky, if you were relating a story to an audience, that was not a witness to the events you are describing, and wanted your audience to be clear on what you were relating, would you say:

A.) * You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church.*

If you actually wanted them to believe this:

B.) You are Cephas, and on your confession I will build my Church

Or this:

C.) You are Cephas, and then Jesus pointed to Himself and said: and on this Cephas I will build my Church.?

Wouldn’t you think those two important details, which either change the meaning, or bring clarity to the sentence, if that is what happened, would be included? The passage is just too important for the writer to leave out, if that was the case.

The confession of Peter can be the rock only in conjunction with Peter himself also being the rock. In other words, his confession can be the rock only because Peter is the rock, and his confession is part of him, in my humble opinion. What I categorically reject, is that the rock is only Peter’s confession, based on something he stated two sentences earlier. If this were the case, wouldn’t Jesus state: 'your confession is like a rock"? Again, these readers of Matthew, were not witnesses (in all likelihood) to this event. Why would Matthew leave out important details, like Jesus pointed to himself, or Jesus meant it as Matthew’s confession? You could even say that Jesus was pointing at a different Apostle, or the slab of rock at Phillipi.

 

[josie_L]

It really doesn’t. The definitive Catholic argument, as per the Catechism, clearly rests on the name in conjunction with the bestowal of the keys. Countless Fathers and saints contradict this understanding by explicitly stating that the other apostles were later given the same keys.

Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

“The Lord made Simon ALONE, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church.”

And that is the truth, no other apostle had his name changed to Cephas/Peter.

Followed by:

“He gave him the keys of Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.”

Nothing here contradicts the fathers and/or Scripture.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Fair enough. But do you find these as legitimate conclusions to the sentence you posted earlier?

Now put your sentence in place of Matthew’s. You could say something like: 'the him that is actually being referred to is this guy I mentioned two sentences earlier" which is what they try to do when they say the rock is Peter’s confession, or you could just as easily say something just like: “Jesus is actually pointing to give the rock to a different Apostle”, even though there is nothing in the sentence, or the preceding sentences to make you think that.

Picky, if you were relating a story to an audience, that was not a witness to the events you are describing, and wanted your audience to be clear on what you were relating, would you say:

A.) * You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church.*

If you actually wanted them to believe this:

B.) You are Cephas, and on your confession I will build my Church

Or this:

C.) You are Cephas, and then Jesus pointed to Himself and said: and on this Cephas I will build my Church.?

Wouldn’t you think those two important details, which either change the meaning, or bring clarity to the sentence, if that is what happened, would be included? The passage is just too important for the writer to leave out, if that was the case.

The confession of Peter can be the rock only in conjunction with Peter himself also being the rock. In other words, his confession can be the rock only because Peter is the rock, and his confession is part of him, in my humble opinion. What I categorically reject, is that the rock is only Peter’s confession, based on something he stated two sentences earlier. If this were the case, wouldn’t Jesus state: 'your confession is like a rock"? Again, these readers of Matthew, were not witnesses (in all likelihood) to this event. Why would Matthew leave out important details, like Jesus pointed to himself, or Jesus meant it as Matthew’s confession? You could even say that Jesus was pointing at a different Apostle, or the slab of rock at Phillipi.

Was Jesus relating a story to an audience that was not present?

In any case:

I would not pass opinion myself without some skill in biblical exegesis, a knowledge of Aramaic, something rather better than my restaurant Greek, and an understanding of the conventions governing puns in first-century Palestine. And even then I might very well keep my opinion to myself in this place: the English language I feel equipped to talk about here; when there’s Christian doctrine on the table I am very careful.

 

[Duane1966]

That’s not the Patristic understanding. truthseeker is in fact, correct in his assertion:

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/

The above link says this:

What I found is that the present-day Catholic understanding of Matthew 16:16-19 is entirely alien to the understandings of the Latin Fathers, saints, and holy writers all the way up to at least the twelfth century. They understood the “rock” as being Peter only metaphorically, and that primarily it referred to either Christ or Peter’s confession of faith.

Contradicted by Orthodox scholars quoted here:catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Webster11Chrysostom2.pdf

Orthodox scholars, Veselin Kesich and John Meyendorff echo the same theme: “We may conclude that the early church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter’s position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period … Their interpretations of Jesus’ promise to Peter − ’You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church’ − converge with those modern exegetes: the rock is Peter. But they also interpreted the rock as Peter’s confession. The Church is built on Peter, or the church is built upon the rock, which is Peter’s confession. We cannot find two distinct groups of exegetes, one with whom states that ‘the rock is Peter,’ while the other concludes that ‘the rock is Peter’s confession.’ In the writings of any given author, one can find both interpretations simultaneously (Kesich)… The great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded” (Meyendorff 65,70).

 

[Duane1966]

Was Jesus relating a story to an audience that was not present?

In any case:

Think you misunderstood what I said. Matthew is the one relating a story. Now most of his readers would not have been present. But we must take into account the possibility that another Apostle at some point could have read what Matthew wrote.

 

[Picky_Picky]

Think you misunderstood what I said. Matthew is the one relating a story. Now most of his readers would not have been present. But we must take into account the possibility that another Apostle at some point could have read what Matthew wrote.

Right, so you don’t think they were necessarily Jesus’s actual words, but Matthew’s?

 

[Duane1966]

Right, so you don’t think they were necessarily Jesus’s actual words, but Matthew’s?

I do think they were Jesus actual words. Now don’t you think that if Jesus had pointed to Himself, that Matthew would have related that? Don’t you think if Jesus pointed to Himself, not mentioning it is omitting a crucial element to his readers?

 

[Picky_Picky]

But, anyway, this part of your argument no longer applies, since you now say these were not words related to an audience of non-witnesses, but Jesus’s actual words at the time

Picky, if you were relating a story to an audience, that was not a witness to the events you are describing, and wanted your audience to be clear on what you were relating, would you say:

A.) * You are Cephas, and on this Cephas I will build my Church.*

If you actually wanted them to believe this:

B.) You are Cephas, and on your confession I will build my Church

 

[Duane1966]

But, anyway, this part of your argument no longer applies, since you now say these were not words related to an audience of non-witnesses, but Jesus’s actual words at the time

Okay. Matthew is relating Jesus’ actual words to an audience of non-witnesses. Without changing Jesus words in any way, shape, or form, to get the meaning out of Jesus’ statement that some people think it is, wouldn’t it make more sense for such an important passage of the bible if Matthew had wrote:

A.)

*“You are Cephas,” * and pointing to himself Jesus continued “and on this cephas, I will build my church.”

clearly showing what would be such an important action? If Jesus actually did point to Himself, that gesture of the hand would be crucial to how this passage is interpreted. For Matthew to omit it is unbelievable to me.

Or he could have wrote:

B.)

“You are Cephas, and on this cephas, I will build my church.” It was on Peter’s confession of faith that is the rock, not Simon himself.

Thereby removing any doubt about what Jesus was referring to?

 

[Rohzek]

The above link says this:Contradicted by Orthodox scholars quoted here:catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/Webster11Chrysostom2.pdf

That’s not a contradiction whatsoever. In fact, it says nearly the same exact thing that the former said. The words “metaphorically” and “primarily” do not mean “either or.”