Catholicism on Eastern Orthodoxy

[Duane1966]

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.”

I understand what those words mean. But your link adds the caveat that the confession is the primary interpretation. The link I provided adds no such caveat. The link I provided seems to say that there is no primary interpretation in the ECF’s. That is a huge difference.

 

[Rohzek]

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

It is possible that further context would exclude your interpretation entirely. Conversely it could also fully exclude mine.

Sure: anastasis.org.uk/on_the_transfiguration.htm

Thanks.

And in other writings of St. Ephraem the Syrian:

Could you provide the full passage to this one as well, just as you did above. I’m always interested in these quotes and seek to fully understand them. So thank you in advance for providing them.

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 **

And could you provide the full passage or citation here too?

So you believe that Peter is the ROCK as well?

Yes, exactly. Where we diverge is what exactly this means, the scope of authority it entails over the others, and ultimately the basis of its continuity and how it did so in the post-apostolic era.

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

Orthodox constantly cite scripture too. The great commission in St. John’s gospel is the common biblical argument on this point, and coincidentally, many Fathers and saints cite this same passage in our favor as well.

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:

Again, I cannot stress Jerome’s understanding of it as a metaphor enough concerning Peter.

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

Could you provide a link to the full passage for this one as well? Thanks again in advance.

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

That’s a minor view in the academic community. Most of the scholars maintain that it was originally written in Greek. If you want to favor the minority view, fair enough, although I’m not inclined to it.

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.

I’m not sure how this squares with the following excerpt of the catechism:

553 Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matthew 16:19). 287 The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep” (John 21:15-17; 10:11). 288 The power to “bind and loose” connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles 289 and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. (881, 1445, 641, 881)

 

[Rohzek]

I understand what those words mean. But your link adds the caveat that the confession is the primary interpretation. The link I provided adds no such caveat. The link I provided seems to say that there is no primary interpretation in the ECF’s. That is a huge difference.

Within the Latin Tradition, yes the confession and Christ are the primary focus of the Latin Fathers’ interpretations. “Seems to say” and “say” are very different things as well. It would be interesting to see the fuller context of the Meyendorff quote. Perhaps then we could have a clear understanding of what Meyendorff meant.

 

[josie_L]

I’m not sure how this squares with the following excerpt of the catechism:

Keyword: SPECIFICALLY.

Jesus SPECIFICALLY gives the keys to Peter, i.e., he SINGLES out Peter to hand over the keys of Heaven, he does not do this with the other apostles.

Again, there is nothing contradicting Tradition or Scripture.

 

[Abu]

The reality is that no one has been able to refute the fact that St Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church, and the fact that St Peter was given FIVE mandates as Christ’s chosen Chief Vicar which were given to no one else.

This is confirmed further by more Fathers of the Church.

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (*The Schism of the Donatists *2:2 [A.D. 367]).

**Epiphanius of Salamis **
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (*Medicine Chest Against All Heresies *27:6 [A.D. 375]).
**
St. Jerome **
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (*Against the Luciferians *23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (*Lives of Illustrious Men *15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (*Letters *15:1 [A.D. 396]).

…“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).

**Peter Chrysologus **
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (*Letters *25:2 [A.D. 449]).
americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm

 

[josie_L]

Within the Latin Tradition, yes the confession and Christ are the primary focus of the Latin Fathers’ interpretations. “Seems to say” and “say” are very different things as well. It would be interesting to see the fuller context of the Meyendorff quote. Perhaps then we could have a clear understanding of what Meyendorff meant.

Phooey!! And while your requesting EVERYONE else to provide a fuller context/evidence, please provide some of your own!!!

 

[josie_L]

It must be stressed that from the moment that Jesus met Simon bar Jonah, he named him Cephas, which means “rock”. This is well before Peter/Cephas ever confessed his faith at Caesaria Philippi.

**John 1:41-42New International Version (NIV)

41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 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[a]).**

Simple, really.

 

[Duane1966]

It must be stressed that from the moment that Jesus met Simon bar Jonah, he named him Cephas, which means “rock”. This is well before Peter/Cephas ever confessed his faith at Caesaria Philippi.

Simple, really.

Playing devil’s advocate here. Saying you will be, does not actually connote a name change at that time. His name doesn’t actually get changed until after he confesses that Jesus is the Messiah.

In another sense it does show Peter’s uniqueness. After all, other Apostles proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah ***before ***Peter, yet He seemingly ignores them, waiting for Peter to make his statement.

 

[josie_L]

It is possible that further context would exclude your interpretation entirely. Conversely it could also fully exclude mine.

What could possibly contradict it other than a disavowal of his original stance?

Yes, exactly. Where we diverge is what exactly this means, the scope of authority it entails over the others, and ultimately the basis of its continuity and how it did so in the post-apostolic era.

If, you agree that Peter is referred to as “rock”, then what are we arguing about, i.e., I believe that the rock to which Jesus is pointing to in Matthew 16:18-21 is both Peter and his confession, because as St. John of Damascene pointed out, one cannot be separated from the other.

Orthodox constantly cite scripture too. The great commission in St. John’s gospel is the common biblical argument on this point, and coincidentally, many Fathers and saints cite this same passage in our favor as well.

Not the Orthodox on this website, moreover, you need to start providing me with corroborating evidence.

Again, I cannot stress Jerome’s understanding of it as a metaphor enough concerning Peter.

Well, I never thought he meant that Peter was actually a rock, so yes, it would have to be metaphorically wouldn’t it?

I remembered St. Jerome and a particular letter he wrote to St. Damasus:

"Since the East, dashed against itself by the accustomed fury of its peoples, is tearing piecemeal the undivided tunic of Christ, woven from the top throughout, and foxes are destroying the vine of Christ, so that among the broken cisterns which have no water it is hard to know where is the sealed fountain and the garden enclosed, I have considered that I ought to consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle [Rom 1:8], asking now the food of my soul where of old I received the garment of Christ. Neither the vast expense of ocean nor all the breadth of land which separate us could preclude me from seeking the precious pearl. Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Now that an evil progeny have dissipated their patrimony, with you alone is the inheritance of the Fathers preserved uncorrupt. There the fertile earth reproduces a hundredfold the purity of the seed of the Lord. Here the corn cast into the furrows degenerates into lolium and wild oats. It is now in the West that the sun of justice rises; whilst in the East, Lucifer, who fell, has set his seat above the stars. You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Here the vessels of clay or wood will be destroyed by the rod of iron and the fire everlasting.

"Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.

"Now, alas! After the creed of Nicaea, after the decree of Alexandria joined to the West, the new expression of three hypostases is required of me, a Roman, by that progeny of Arius, the Campenses *. What new Paul, doctor of the nations, has taught this? …

"Decide so, I beseech you, if you will, and I will not fear to acknowledge three hypostases. If you order it, let a new creed be composed, after that of Nicaea, and we orthodox will confess our faith in the words of the Arians. But the whole literary faculty uses hypostasis in the sense of [Greek], etc…*

That’s a minor view in the academic community. Most of the scholars maintain that it was originally written in Greek. If you want to favor the minority view, fair enough, although I’m not inclined to it.

St. Iranaeus of Lyons wrote:

Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect

, while Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia. (Against Heresies 3:1:1)

Even Eusebius (Church historian) stated that Matthew was written in Aramaic. Either way it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, which is in Aramaic.

 

[Rohzek]

Phooey!! And while your requesting EVERYONE else to provide a fuller context/evidence, please provide some of your own!!!

Sure:

Jerome’s COMMENTARIORUM IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI AD EUSEBIUM LIBRI QUATUOR, Patrologia Latina 26: 0117C – 0117D

Hilary of Poitiers’ IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI COMMENTARIUS, Patrologia Latina 9: 1009C – 1010A

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.33

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.37

pseudo-Bede’s IN MATTHAEI EVANGELIUM EXPOSITIO, Patrologia Latina 92: 0078D – 0079A

Paschasius Radbertus’ EXPOSITIO IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI, Patrologia Latina 120: 0560B; 0560C – 0560D; 0561A; 0562C – 0562D; 0563A

Hrabanus Maurus’ COMMENTARIORUM IN MATTHAEUM LIBRI OCTO, Patrologia Latina 107: 0992A-0992B

Dungal of Bobbio’s EXPOSITIO IN MATTHAEUM EVANGELISTAM, Patrologia Latina 106: 1396D; 1397A – 1397B

Rupert of Deutz’ IN OPUS DE GLORIA ET HONORE FILII HOMINIS SUPER MATTHAEUM, Patrologia Latina 168: 1385A

Bruno of Segni’s COMMENTARIA IN MATTHAEUM, Patrologia Latina 165: 0212A – 0213B; 0214A – 0214B

All of these can be found here at Documenta Catholica Omnia:

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/25_10_40-_Imagines.html

The corresponding column numbers such as with Bruno of Segni: 0214A-0214B translate to the page numbers at the top left and right corners of each page in the pdf texts.

As well as New Advent:

newadvent.org/fathers/3302.htm

Hilary’s work is corresponds to Book #, then paragraph number. So Book 6, paragraph whatever I have listed.

 

[Duane1966]

What could possibly contradict it other than a disavowal of his original stance?

If, you agree that Peter is referred to as “rock”, then what are we arguing about, i.e., I believe that the rock to which Jesus is pointing to in Matthew 16:18-21 is both Peter and his confession, because as St. John of Damascene pointed out, one cannot be separated from the other.

Not the Orthodox on this website, moreover, you need to start providing me with corroborating evidence.

Well, I never thought he meant that Peter was actually a rock, so yes, it would have to be metaphorically wouldn’t it?

I remembered St. Jerome and a particular letter he wrote to St. Damasus:

St. Iranaeus of Lyons wrote:

Even Eusebius (Church historian) stated that Matthew was written in Aramaic. Either way it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, which is in Aramaic.

Just to add from catholic.com

 

[josie_L]

Playing devil’s advocate here. Saying you will be, does not actually connote a name change at that time. His name doesn’t actually get changed until after he confesses that Jesus is the Messiah.

In another sense it does show Peter’s uniqueness. After all, other Apostles proclaimed that Jesus was the Messiah ***before ***Peter, yet He seemingly ignores them, waiting for Peter to make his statement.

That’s the NIV Bible, my biblical translation (the New Revised Standard Version) states:

"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).

Now, whether he actually starts calling him Peter then and there does not change the fact that Jesus is making this statement at the moment that He meets Simon/Peter. He is establishing who Simon is before he even makes his confession.

 

[Duane1966]

What could possibly contradict it other than a disavowal of his original stance?

If, you agree that Peter is referred to as “rock”, then what are we arguing about, i.e., I believe that the rock to which Jesus is pointing to in Matthew 16:18-21 is both Peter and his confession, because as St. John of Damascene pointed out, one cannot be separated from the other.

Not the Orthodox on this website, moreover, you need to start providing me with corroborating evidence.

Well, I never thought he meant that Peter was actually a rock, so yes, it would have to be metaphorically wouldn’t it?

I remembered St. Jerome and a particular letter he wrote to St. Damasus:

St. Iranaeus of Lyons wrote:

Even Eusebius (Church historian) stated that Matthew was written in Aramaic. Either way it doesn’t change the fact that Jesus named Simon, Cephas, which is in Aramaic.

And also Origen and Papas confirm Matthew in Hebrew.

 

[josie_L]

Sure:

Jerome’s COMMENTARIORUM IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI AD EUSEBIUM LIBRI QUATUOR, Patrologia Latina 26: 0117C – 0117D

Hilary of Poitiers’ IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI COMMENTARIUS, Patrologia Latina 9: 1009C – 1010A

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.33

Hilary of Poitiers’ On the Trinity 6.37

pseudo-Bede’s IN MATTHAEI EVANGELIUM EXPOSITIO, Patrologia Latina 92: 0078D – 0079A

Paschasius Radbertus’ EXPOSITIO IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI, Patrologia Latina 120: 0560B; 0560C – 0560D; 0561A; 0562C – 0562D; 0563A

Hrabanus Maurus’ COMMENTARIORUM IN MATTHAEUM LIBRI OCTO, Patrologia Latina 107: 0992A-0992B

Dungal of Bobbio’s EXPOSITIO IN MATTHAEUM EVANGELISTAM, Patrologia Latina 106: 1396D; 1397A – 1397B

Rupert of Deutz’ IN OPUS DE GLORIA ET HONORE FILII HOMINIS SUPER MATTHAEUM, Patrologia Latina 168: 1385A

Bruno of Segni’s COMMENTARIA IN MATTHAEUM, Patrologia Latina 165: 0212A – 0213B; 0214A – 0214B

All of these can be found here at Documenta Catholica Omnia:

documentacatholicaomnia.eu/25_10_40-_Imagines.html

The corresponding column numbers such as with Bruno of Segni: 0214A-0214B translate to the page numbers at the top left and right corners of each page in the pdf texts.

As well as New Advent:

newadvent.org/fathers/3302.htm

Hilary’s work is corresponds to Book #, then paragraph number. So Book 6, paragraph whatever I have listed.

Goodness, who are some of these people, moreover, how do they represent the whole of Latin Tradition?

Where’s Iranaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict of Nursia, Damasus, Celestine, Isidore of Seville, Vincent of Lerins, Peter Chrysologus, St. Optatus, Tertullian, Gregory, Leo, John Cassian, St. Innocent, Cyprian, Dionysius, Caesarius of Arles, St. Pacian, St. Siricius. . . etc.

 

[Rohzek]

What could possibly contradict it other than a disavowal of his original stance?

Will you provide a citation/link or not?

If, you agree that Peter is referred to as “rock”, then what are we arguing about, i.e., I believe that the rock to which Jesus is pointing to in Matthew 16:18-21 is both Peter and his confession, because as St. John of Damascene pointed out, one cannot be separated from the other.

As I said in my quote above, we’re arguing about the exact meaning of it. Why is this not clear to you?

Not the Orthodox on this website, moreover, you need to start providing me with corroborating evidence.

Evidence for what? That I hold a certain position? Or what the Orthodox position is? What are you asking me for?

Well, I never thought he meant that Peter was actually a rock, so yes, it would have to be metaphorically wouldn’t it?

That’s not what I meant by metaphor.

I remembered St. Jerome and a particular letter he wrote to St. Damasus:

Which letter? Citation or link please, so that I can read the full context.

St. Iranaeus of Lyons wrote:

idem

 

[Rohzek]

Who are some of these people, moreover, how do they represent the whole of Latin Tradition?

Which ones are you asking? It would be quicker if you just googled them, and then asked me any remaining questions you might have about them.

As for how representative of the Latin Tradition, it is so because those are literally all of the commentators/exegetes on the Gospel of Matthew from the Patristic period to a century after the Great Schism. None of what they say about the Gospel of Matthew corresponds to current Catholic belief regarding the verse of Matthew.

 

[Rohzek]

And also Origen and Papas confirm Matthew in Hebrew.

Sigh…as a short-hand, although I really hate to do it, I’ll quote Wikipedia on this matter. I won’t dispute the point any further:

The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous: the author is not named within the text, and the superscription “according to Matthew” was added some time in the second century.[12][13] The tradition that the author was the disciple Matthew begins with the early Christian bishop Papias of Hierapolis (c. 100–140 AD), who is cited by the Church historian Eusebius (260–340 AD), as follows: “Matthew collected the oracles (logia: sayings of or about Jesus) in the Hebrew language ( Hebraïdi dialektōi), and each one interpreted (hērmēneusen - perhaps “translated”) them as best he could.”[14][Notes 1] On the surface, this has been taken to imply that Matthew’s Gospel itself was written in Hebrew or Aramaic by the apostle Matthew and later translated into Greek, but nowhere does the author claim to have been an eyewitness to events, and Matthew’s Greek “reveals none of the telltale marks of a translation”.[15][12] Scholars have put forward several theories to explain Papias: perhaps Matthew wrote two gospels, one, now lost, in Hebrew, the other our Greek version; or perhaps the logia was a collection of sayings rather than the gospel; or by dialektōi Papias may have meant that Matthew wrote in the Jewish style rather than in the Hebrew language.[14] The consensus is that Papias does not describe the Gospel of Matthew as we know it, and it is generally accepted that Matthew was written in Greek, not in Aramaic or Hebrew.[16]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author

 

[Rohzek]

Where’s Iranaeus, Ambrose, Augustine, Benedict of Nursia, Damasus, Celestine, Isidore of Seville, Vincent of Lerins, Peter Chrysologus, St. Optatus, Tertullian, Gregory, Leo, John Cassian, St. Innocent, Cyprian, Dionysius, Caesarius of Arles, St. Pacian, St. Siricius. . . etc.

None of those people wrote exegeses on the Gospel of Matthew. You asked for context for the works I put forward, which I mainly pull from exegesis with the exception of Hilary’s On the Trinity. I provided it. You think that the Latin tradition upholds your side? Fine, dispute it then. And please provide exact citations or links to full passages when you do, as I have done.

 

[josie_L]

Which ones are you asking? It would be quicker if you just googled them, and then asked me any remaining questions you might have about them.

As for how representative of the Latin Tradition, it is so because those are literally all of the commentators/exegetes on the Gospel of Matthew from the Patristic period to a century after the Great Schism. None of what they say about the Gospel of Matthew corresponds to current Catholic belief regarding the verse of Matthew.

In an earlier post you stated that Latin Tradition/fathers refer to the rock as Peter’s confession and/or Christ, yet these fathers (some of whom I have never heard of before)do not represent the whole of Latin Tradition, so it is a misleading to say:

Within the Latin Tradition, yes the confession and Christ are the primary focus of the Latin Fathers’ interpretations.

False, you don’t have enough evidence to make such a claim.

Moreover, I just cited St. Jerome, who clearly called the Pope/successor to Peter, rock in his letter to St. Damasus:

"Since the East, dashed against itself by the accustomed fury of its peoples, is tearing piecemeal the undivided tunic of Christ, woven from the top throughout, and foxes are destroying the vine of Christ, so that among the broken cisterns which have no water it is hard to know where is the sealed fountain and the garden enclosed, I have considered that I ought to consult the Chair of Peter and the faith praised by the mouth of the Apostle [Rom 1:8], asking now the food of my soul where of old I received the garment of Christ. Neither the vast expense of ocean nor all the breadth of land which separate us could preclude me from seeking the precious pearl. Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together. Now that an evil progeny have dissipated their patrimony, with you alone is the inheritance of the Fathers preserved uncorrupt. There the fertile earth reproduces a hundredfold the purity of the seed of the Lord. Here the corn cast into the furrows degenerates into lolium and wild oats. It is now in the West that the sun of justice rises; whilst in the East, Lucifer, who fell, has set his seat above the stars. You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth. Here the vessels of clay or wood will be destroyed by the rod of iron and the fire everlasting.

"Therefore, though your greatness makes me fear, yet your kindness invites me. From the priest I ask the salvation of the victim; from the shepherd the safety of his sheep. Away with envy, away with all canvassing of the Roman power; it is but with the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the Cross that I speak. Following none in the first place but Christ, I am in communion with your beatitude, that is, with the Chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church is built. Whosoever shall eat the Lamb outside that house if profane. If any be not with Noah in the Ark, he shall perish beneath the sway of the deluge. And because for my sins I have migrated to this solitude, where Syria borders on the barbarians, and I cannot always at this great distance ask for the Holy One of the Lord from your holiness, therefore I follow here your colleagues the Egyptian confessors; and under these great ships my little vessel is unnoticed. Vitalis I know not, Meletius I reject; I know not Paulinus. Whoso gathereth not with thee scattereth; that is to say, whoso is not with Christ is of Antichrist.

"Now, alas! After the creed of Nicaea, after the decree of Alexandria joined to the West, the new expression of three hypostases is required of me, a Roman, by that progeny of Arius, the Campenses *. What new Paul, doctor of the nations, has taught this? …

"Decide so, I beseech you, if you will, and I will not fear to acknowledge three hypostases. If you order it, let a new creed be composed, after that of Nicaea, and we orthodox will confess our faith in the words of the Arians. But the whole literary faculty uses hypostasis in the sense of [Greek], etc…*

 

[Rohzek]

In an earlier post you stated that Latin Tradition/fathers refer to the rock as Peter’s confession and/or Christ, yet these fathers (some of whom I have never heard of before)do not represent the whole of Latin Tradition, so it is a misleading to say:

Within the Latin Tradition, yes the confession and Christ are the primary focus of the Latin Fathers’ interpretations.

False, we don’t have enough evidence to make such a claim.

Yes, I do have enough evidence to make that claim. I literally just cited EVERY COMMENTARY on the Gospel of Matthew from 300 AD to 1200 AD. EVERY COMMENTARY. How is this not representative of Latin Tradition whatsoever? Explain this to me?

Moreover, I just cited St. Jerome, who clearly calls Peter, rock in his letter to St. Damasus:

What is the number of the letter? What is it usually titled as? Do you have a link? Can you answer any of these requests so I can look up the letter in full myself?

Whether this is all we have to go by does not mean you can extrapolate that Latin Tradition/Fathers refer to the rock as Peter’s confession and/or Christ. It is deceptive to say such a thing.

It isn’t deceptive if, again, I cite EVERY COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW made in Latin for the FIRST 1200 years of the Church.