You provided it after I asked, but prior to this you kept making statements without providing anything to back up those remarks even though you were requesting me (and Duane) to provide full texts and/or sources: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.
Was I to take your word for it?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.
And yet again:Again, I cannot stress Jerome’s understanding of it as a metaphor enough concerning Peter.
If you’re going to request something of others then do have the courtesy to do the same because making such statements does require evidence/sources.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.
The link unto which I initially linked, shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/ , has all of the citations that I explicitly stated here. I did not think that I had to repeat something that I already provided. Seriously, you either missed the citations provided in the link, OR you didn’t even bother reading it.You provided it after I asked, but prior to this you kept making statements without providing anything to back up those remarks even though you were requesting me (and Duane) to provide full texts and/or sources:
No, of course not, which is why I provided citations from the first post.Was I to take your word for it?
What about it?Or how about this:
What about this? I’ve provided citation from the very get-go. What is your point?And yet again:
I’ve, FROM THE FIRST POST on this particular subject, provided citations. How have you missed this?If you’re going to request something of others then do have the courtesy to do the same because making such statements does require evidence/sources.
From the site hebrewgospel.comSigh…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:
Josephus’s Aramaic Original of the Jewish Wars was lost as was Hebrew Matthew.
It is similar to Josephus who first wrote his Jewish wars in Aramaic and then in Greek. The Aramaic one is gone, only the Greek one remains. If this happened to Josephus’ Aramaic version, it certainly could happen to Matthew’s Aramaic version.
Scholarly Support for the Disappearance of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew
These statements are arranged chronologically.
- Johann David Michaelis
“Now there are many books besides St. Matthew’s Gospel, which are no longer extant in the language in which they were written, and yet we do not doubt, that those books once existed. It is surely not incredible that a Gospel written in Hebrew might dwindle into oblivion, and become gradually extinct, after the destruction of Jerusalem, and the dispersion of the Hebrew Jews. Palestine ceased at the end of the first century to be a seminary for Jewish converts, who understood Hebrew: and to the Greek Christians, a Hebrew Gospel was of no value.
But suppose the Hebrew Gospel continued several centuries in existence, yet, if we except Origen and Jerome, perhaps none of the fathers, who have spoken of this Gospel, were able to read it. The objection therefore applies chiefly, if not entirely to Origen and Jerome. But Jerome not only declares that he had seen the Hebrew Gospel, which was believed to be St. Matthew’s original, but even that he made a translation of it. Origen indeed rejects the Hebrew Gospel used by the Nazarenes, which is the Gospel that Jerome translated, whence it is inferred that in Origen’s opinion the author of it was not an Apostle. But this inference is liable to many objections: for the Gospel used by the Nazarenes, which Jerome translated, may have been originally the work of St. Matthew, …
- Joseph Benson
“The sacred deposit was first corrupted among them, and afterward it disappeared; for that ‘the gospel according to the Hebrews,’ used by the Nazarenes, (to which, as the original, Jerome sometimes had recourse, and which, he tells us, he had translated into Greek and Latin,) and that the gospel also used by the Ebionites, were, though greatly vitiated and interpolated, the remains of Matthew’s original, will hardly bear a reasonable doubt.”10
- Archibald Alexander
“It has been considered a strong objection to the Hebrew original of this gospel, that no person, whose writings have come down to us, has intimated that he had ever seen it; and from the earliest times it seems to have existed in the Greek language. But this fact is perfectly consistent with the supposition now made; for the desolation of Judea, and dispersion of the Jewish Christians, having taken place within a few years after the publication of Matthew’s gospel, the copies of the original Hebrew would be confined to the Jewish converts; and as other Christians had copies in the Greek, of equal authenticity with the Hebrew, no inquiries would be made after the latter. These Jewish Christians, after their removal, dwindled away in a short time, and a large part of them became erroneous in their faith;
- Thomas Horne
“From a review of all the arguments adduced on this much litigated question, we cannot but prefer the last stated opinion as that which best harmonizes with the consent of antiquity, namely, that St. Matthew wrote first a Hebrew Gospel for the use of the first Hebrew converts. Its subsequent disappearance is easily accounted for, by its being so corrupted by the Ebionites that it lost all its authority in the church, and was deemed spurious, and also by the prevalence of the Greek language, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem, when the Jewish language and everything belonging to the Jews fell into the utmost contempt. It also is clear, that our present Greek Gospel is an authentic original, and consequently an inspired production of the Evangelist Matthew…”12
- Louis Berkhof
“The evangelist after writing his Gospel in Hebrew with a view to his countrymen, possibly when he had left Palestine to labor elsewhere, translated or rather furnished a new recension of his Gospel in the Greek language with a view to the Jews of the Diaspora. The former was soon lost and altogether replaced by the latter.
In formulating our opinion in regard to this question, we desire to state first of all that we have no sufficient reason to discredit the testimony of the early Church [that there was a Hebrew original]…the internal evidence of our present Gospel proves conclusively that this is not a mere translation of a Hebrew original. The evidence adduced seems quite sufficient. The Greek Matthew may be and most likely is in substance a translation of the original Hebrew; yet it must be regarded as in many respects a new recension of the Gospel. The loss of the Hebrew original and the general substitution for it of the Greek version is readily explained by the scattering of the Jews after the destruction of Jerusalem, and by the early corruption of the Hebrew Gospel in the circles of the Ebionites and the Nazarenes…it seems most plausible that Matthew himself, shortly after he had written the Hebrew Gospel, translated it, adjusting it in several respects to the needs of the Jews that were dispersed in different lands.”13
- Henry Thiessen
“It is evident that when the Greek Matthew had once become current in the Church, the Aramaic edition of it dropped out. Josephus wrote his Wars of the Jews in Aramaic and secured the help of Greek writers in freely reproducing and improving it in the Greek language. The Greek edition alone has come down to us. We believe that in the same manner, though perhaps without the assistance of Greek writers, Matthew reproduced his Gospel in Greek.”14
Because had I not requested you to source your claim, it would have seemed as though by Latin Tradition, you meant the whole of it, i.e., all the Latin fathers. Had you stipulated from the get go who those fathers were and provided me with their commentary we would not be having this discussion.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?
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?
It isn’t deceptive if, again, I cite EVERY COMMENTARY ON MATTHEW made in Latin for the FIRST 1200 years of the Church.
Seriously, FROM MY FIRST POST, I provided the sources. They were in the link.Because had I not requested you to source your claim, it would have seemed as though by Latin Tradition, you meant the whole of it, i.e., all the Latin fathers. Had you stipulated from the get go who those fathers were and provided me with their commentary we would not be having this discussion.
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/
That is entirely plausible. Why do you think I have been asking you for citations/full passages/links? If they say something that contradicts or clarifies an entire genre of literature, then I’d like to know.And although, none of the other Latin fathers provided an exegesis of Matthew (than the ones you mentioned), do you mean to tell me that none could have possibly, whether by letter (like St. Jerome), or a hymn (like St. Ephraem), or homily . . . etc., MADE KNOWN THEIR STANCE regarding the “rock” in Matthew 16:18.
Okay, but claiming that someone is wrong and providing evidence as to why is entirely different from claiming that they are being deceptive.I have given more than one example of what one can find in a simple letter, or hymn, or homily as a means to find what the fathers believed concerning Peter.
This is an Orthodox apologetics site, and that link you provided was directed at someone other than myself, so no, I did not read it, but having looked at it, I have to ask: is this your site, i.e., blog? You seem to be saying the same things word for word.The link unto which I initially linked, shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/latin-exegetical-interpretations-of-matthew-1618-19-from-late-antiquity-to-the-twelfth-century/ , has all of the citations that I explicitly stated here. I did not think that I had to repeat something that I already provided. Seriously, you either missed the citations provided in the link, OR you didn’t even bother reading it.
The Reward of Confession. And plainly the worthy confession of Peter is followed with a favor, because he had seen (subjunctive case) the Son of God in man. Blessed is he, who beyond human eyes is praised to have been thought of and seen: he was not believing due to the flesh and blood, but by seeing the revelation of the Son of God from the heavenly Father; and worthy and just, was he such that in Christ of God he was the first to recognize. Oh! By appellation of a new name the fruitful foundation of the Church, worthy and built is the rock of that, [the rock] which (feminine) would destroy those flames, the gates of Hell, and all of the enclosed dead that you behold. O blessed door-keeper of heaven, by whose eternal will had the keys been delivered unto the entrances (fourth declension; accusative plural), whose earthly judgment shall be the first authorized judgment in heaven: so that those on the earth and land shall be saved, and they shall obtain the condition of the same uprightness in Heaven.
Where in this quote does Hilary of Poitiers contradict our Catholic understanding of Peter as rock? Moreover, I have other quotes from St. Hilary of Poitiers:Hilary of Poitiers’ IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI COMMENTARIUS, Patrologia Latina 9: 1009C – 1010A
“Blessed Simon who, after his confession of the Mystery, was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church and received the Keys of the Kingdom.” (Hilary, De Trinitate, 6:20).
“On an occasion that the Only Begotten spoke to His disciples certain things concerning His Passion, and Peter expressed his abhorrence, as if it were unworthy of the Son of God, He took up Peter - to whom He had just before given the keys of the kingdom of heaven, upon whom He was about to build the Church. . . against which the gates of hell should not in any way prevail, who, whatsoever he should bind or loose on earth, that should abide bound or loosed in heaven, this same Peter then, when expressing his abhorrence in such reproachful terms, He took up with, ‘Get behind me Satan, thou art an offence to Me.’ For it was with Him so sacred a thing to suffer for the salvation of the human race, as thus to designate with the reproachful name Satan, Peter, the FIRST confessor of the Son of God, the FOUNDATION OF THE CHURCH, the door-keeper of the heavenly kingdom and in his judgment on earth a Judge of heaven.” (Hilary, Tract in Ps. cxxxi.)
You provided one link, which was from an Orthodox apologetics site, which through me off, as I did not think that this was an appropriate site to source (ShamelesslyOrthodox, really), therefore, I did not read it. Moreover, you linked it in response to another poster. If you really wanted me to read it then you should have directed me to it, or posted the link again, but honestly, having read it, I don’t see how you think this contradicts or even puts holes in our Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-21.Seriously, FROM MY FIRST POST, I provided the sources. They were in the link.
Of course, it’s entirely plausible, which is why I thought you were misleading me (because you weren’t sourcing the Latin fathers that I knew referred to Peter as rock).That is entirely plausible. Why do you think I have been asking you for citations/full passages/links? If they say something that contradicts or clarifies an entire genre of literature, then I’d like to know.
I said “misleading”, but it was in a way (not deliberately so), i.e., you didn’t make use of all the literature attributed to the ECFs that referenced Peter as rock.Okay, but claiming that someone is wrong and providing evidence as to why is entirely different from claiming that they are being deceptive.
Here it is in full: newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htmjosie, where is the citation for the Jerome letter to St. Damasus?
It is mine, although I’ve taken a fancy as of late more with the philosophy of the Enlightenment. Once you translate the same passages over various threads, you decide that it might be more efficient to write it down somewhere and just link it rather than typing it up again constantly.This is an Orthodox apologetics site, and that link you provided was directed at someone other than myself, so no, I did not read it, but having looked at it, I have to ask: is this your site, i.e., blog? You seem to be saying the same things word for word.
Taken in conjunction with his comments from On the Trinity, it is clear that he employs the Peter/Rock message metaphorically, which I wanted to stress.Moreover, from that site:
Where in this quote does Hilary of Poitiers contradict our Catholic understanding of Peter as rock? Moreover, I have other quotes from St. Hilary of Poitiers:
St. Hilary of Poitiers (356 A.D.)
(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, “Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno” (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., “Sent.”, IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.
**The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ’s words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests.
Now if you wish to assert that only Peter was the Rock although Christ was too, then fine. That claim is just as easily falsified:
237 (Vers. 21, 22.) In quo omnis structura, compacta, crescit in templum sanctum in Domino, in quo et vos coaedificamini in habitaculum Dei in spiritu (Ephesians 2:21-22). Hic sensus est, unde Dominus ait: super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Duos enim populos in se suscepit Salvator, et fecit unum in Domino, sicut et lapis angularis duos parietes continet, in unitate domus firmatos; fideles enim superficies sunt [Col.0381A] templi Dei, in spiritu conversantes; ut possint haeredes fieri coelestis habitationis.
In whom all the building, being framed together, groweth up into an holy temple in the Lord. In whom you also are built together into an habitation of God in the Spirit. (Ephesians 2:21-22) In this sense, the Lord says: Upon this rock I will build my Church (Matthew 16:18-19). In fact, the Redeemer supported two peoples in himself, and he made them one in the Lord, just as a corner stone has two parts, in unity with the Lord they are made strong. In fact, the faithful are the buildings of the Temple of God, [ever] abiding in the [Holy] Spirit; so that they are made heirs to the living heaven.
Commentary on Ephesians, PL 17: 380-381
Considering that this is a Catholic apologetics site, and that people constantly use its materials of quotations, etc. throughout many of its threads, I fail to see how my link is remotely inappropriate.You provided one link, which was from an Orthodox apologetics site, which through me off, as I did not think that this was an appropriate site to source (ShamelesslyOrthodox, really), therefore, I did not read it. Moreover, you linked it in response to another poster. If you really wanted me to read it then you should have directed me to it, or posted the link again, but honestly, having read it, I don’t see how you think this contradicts or even puts holes in our Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-21.
That’s a recklessly liberal usage of the term “misleading.” I cited the Latin tradition within a very specific genre that got to the heart of the issue, ie Commentaries on the Gospel of Matthew. There is no justification to accuse me of misleading. And once again, my issue is with assertion that the Rock only applies to Peter.I said “misleading”, but it was in a way (not deliberately so), i.e., you didn’t make use of all the literature attributed to the ECFs that referenced Peter as rock.
Thanks.Here it is in full: newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm
As I say: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.)
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.)
Thereby removing any doubt about what Jesus was referring to?
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.
(Vers. 20.) Superaedificati supra fundamentum apostolorum et prophetarum, ipso summo angulari lapide Christo Jesu.(Ephes. II:20) Hoc est supra novum et vetus Testamentum collocati. Quod enim ** apostoli praedicaverunt, prophetae futurum dixerunt; quamvis dicat ad Corinthios: Deus, inquit, primum posuit in Ecclesia apostolos, secundo prophetas (I Cor. XII, 28).** Sed hi alii prophetae sunt; illo enim loco de ordinatione Ecclesiae disputat, hic vero de fundamento Ecclesiae: prophetae enim disposuerunt; nam apostoli fundamenta jecerunt. Unde dicit Dominus ad Petrum: [Col.0380D] Super istam petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam (Matth. XVI, 18), hoc est, in hac catholicae fidei confessione statuam fideles ad vitam; nam et David disposuit domum Dei, et signavit locum ubi fieret: Salomon vero fundavit eam.
Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone (Ephesians 2:20). It is upon this [rock] that the New and Old Testament is established. In fact, whereby the apostles preached, the prophets were speaking of the future. Just as he says to the Corinthians: And God indeed hath set some in the church; first apostles, secondly prophets (1 Corinthians 12:28). But these are the other prophets; in fact he investigates that place of ordination of the Church. Truly this is upon the foundation of the Church: In fact, the prophets set [everything] in order while the apostles established the foundations. Whence the Lord says to Peter: Upon this rock I will build my Church (Matthew 16:18). Here is, in this confession of the universal faith, the sincere image of life. Because David arranged the house of God, and signified the place where Christ would build [it]: Truly Solomon founded it.
Ambrosiaster, Commentary on Ephesians, PL 17: 380
It is pretty clear that Ambrosiaster believes that Peter was not the sole rock, but rather representative of all of the rocks. In other words, the apostles plural are the foundations of which Christ built his church. There is nothing exclusive to Peter, which is why Ambrosiaster links the Matthew verse to this Ephesians verse. The two peoples being united to Christ are both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New Covenant, ie Jews and Gentiles.
Again, what’s with the “metaphorical”, i.e., we know Peter is not actually a rock, nor is Jesus for that matter, but that the Bible both refers to Jesus and Peter as rock has significance, the fact, that Jesus changed SImon’s name to “rock” is singular, i.e., no one else is given this name/honour.Taken in conjunction with his comments from On the Trinity, it is clear that he employs the Peter/Rock message metaphorically, which I wanted to stress.
The keys are significant to the Catholic position because once again Jesus singled out Peter by handing him the keys before anyone else, i.e., he is set apart from the others who received the power of the keys later. That is in itself another indication of Peter’s role within the Church, i.e., he would be first (but this was not simply a position of honour).Also, while I didn’t bring it up a while ago, the Catholic position rests on the authority of the keys very much so:
Now if you wish to assert that only Peter was the Rock although Christ was too, then fine. That claim is just as easily falsified:
I never asserted that ONLY PETER was the rock, but I fail to see how this quote from Ambrosiaster changes anything, i.e., Peter is still the only one CALLED “rock”, the only one to be mentioned by Jesus specifically as the “rock” upon which the Church would be built. We are part of that foundation too, however, just not like in the same manner as Peter.Ambrosiaster:
East: Patriarch St. Gregory Nazianzen the Great Theologian of Constantinople (Doctor & Cappadocian Father) says in 380 [Oration 32:18 in PG 36:193C], “Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called Rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church.”
East: Bishop St. Basil the Great of Caesarea (Doctor & Cappadocian Father) says in 375 [Commentary on Isaiah 2:66 in PG 30:223B], “Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised that He would build His Church.”
East: Bishop St. Gregory of Nyssa (Cappadocian Father) says before 394 [Panegyric on St. Stephen 3 in PG], “The memory of Peter, who is the head of the Apostles… he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the Savior built His Church.”
West: Bishop St. Maximus of Turin says in 408 [Homily 66 in PL 57:394A], “This Peter on whom 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 Rock, when the Lord says to him: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My church.’”
Newsflash, Catholic teaching does not deny that the other apostles are part of the foundation upon which the Church will be built, the significance with Matthew 16: 18-22 is that Jesus is bestowing upon Peter a rock solidness, which cannot be broken, because it is through Christ (the rock) that Peter is made rock. And it is this “firm and solid rock” upon which the Church will be built.Allow me to add this from Ambrosiaster as well in addition to correcting my previous translation:
It is pretty clear that Ambrosiaster believes that Peter was not the sole rock, but rather representative of all of the rocks. In other words, the apostles plural are the foundations of which Christ built his church. There is nothing exclusive to Peter, which is why Ambrosiaster links the Matthew verse to this Ephesians verse. The two peoples being united to Christ are both those of the Old Covenant and those of the New Covenant, ie Jews and Gentiles.
The metaphor is stressed not because I believe you think Peter is turned into an actual rock. I stress the metaphor because you think that Peter is somehow special and unique in this case. All that I see is that Peter is first in believing the faith that was given to him via grace. He was renamed in commemoration of this wonderful event, and not to make him supreme. Ambrosiaster stresses this moreso in his Commentary on Ephesians by revealing that everyone is a foundation for the church by virtue of their faith in Christ. He links the Ephesians verse with the Matthew verse, thus indicating the Peter was merely the first, not the supreme.Again, what’s with the “metaphorical”, i.e., we know Peter is not actually a rock, nor is Jesus for that matter, but that the Bible both refers to Jesus and Peter as rock has significance, the fact, that Jesus changed SImon’s name to “rock” is singular, i.e., no one else is given this name/honour.
This must therefore mean something. And the fathers are clear as to what that something is, Peter is the rock upon which the Church will be built (his faith cannot be separated from his person), this is not metaphorical, in that, Jesus meant to bestow this honour to Peter in a real sense. Jesus the rock is bestowing upon his apostle, his own rock solidness, and that rock solidness in turn will be the (unbreakable) foundation of His new Church.
That’s not Catholic teaching. Catholic teaching very clearly states that Peter is the only one who has the keys AND is the only one (excluding Christ) who is the rock. Again, Catholic Encyclopedia argues very fervently about this point, as I pointed out. Your position is in direct violation of Lumen Gentium, proclaimed by the Second Vatican Council in 1964:The keys are significant to the Catholic position because once again Jesus singled out Peter by handing him the keys before anyone else, i.e., he is set apart from the others who received the power of the keys later. That is in itself another indication of Peter’s role within the Church, i.e., he would be first (but this was not simply a position of honour).
This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*)
Take note that Catholic teaching today agrees with the later Scholastics, who unlike the Fathers and early Scholastics believed that the powers of binding and loosing and the keys were two separate things.
It very clearly does deny it, as per Lumen Gentium. And while I often ignore Abu, I suggest you try looking at some of his posts throughout this thread and others like it. He seems to grasp this point better than anybody.Newsflash, Catholic teaching does not deny that the other apostles are part of the foundation upon which the Church will be built
Josie L #117
Newsflash, Catholic teaching does not deny that the other apostles are part of the foundation upon which the Church will be built, the significance with Matthew 16: 18-22 is that Jesus is bestowing upon Peter a rock solidness, which cannot be broken, because it is through Christ (the rock) that Peter is made rock. And it is this “firm and solid rock” upon which the Church will be built.
Great facts – incontrovertible.Furthermore, one cannot understand Matthew 16: 18-22 without looking at Peter’s role in the N.T. in it’s totality, the evidence of which will confirm the Catholic position of papal primacy.
catholicculture.org/cult…cfm?recnum=81
This is your interpretation, not that given by Tradition and/or Scripture, moreover, I don’t disagree with Ambrosiaster that we are all PART of the foundation of the Church, but what is unique about Peter is that Jesus specifically singles him out to say that upon this rock/Peter this Church will be BUILT, in other words, whatever Church that Jesus had in mind would not only have to include Peter (and his successors), but would be a defining characteristic of that Church, wherein Peter (and his successors) play a prominent/pre-eminent role. Again, Matthew 16: 18-22 cannot be properly understood without taking the whole of Peter’s prominence in the N.T.The metaphor is stressed not because I believe you think Peter is turned into an actual rock. I stress the metaphor because you think that Peter is somehow special and unique in this case. All that I see is that Peter is first in believing the faith that was given to him via grace. He was renamed in commemoration of this wonderful event, and not to make him supreme. Ambrosiaster stresses this moreso in his Commentary on Ephesians by revealing that everyone is a foundation for the church by virtue of their faith in Christ. He links the Ephesians verse with the Matthew verse, thus indicating the Peter was merely the first, not the supreme.
- Matthew 16:18: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
- Matthew 16:19: “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
- Matthew 16:19: “Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
- Peter’s name occurs first in all lists of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him “the first” (10:2). (Judas Iscariot is invariably mentioned last.)
- Peter is almost without exception named first whenever he appears with anyone else. In one example to the contrary, Galatians 2:9, where he is listed after James and before John, he is clearly pre-eminent in the entire context (see, for example, 1:18-19; 2:7-8).
- Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, “Rock,” solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).
- Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the chief shepherd after himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pt 5:2).
- Peter alone among the apostles is mentioned by name as having been prayed for by Jesus Christ in order that his “faith fail not” (Lk 22:32).
- Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to “strengthen your brethren” (Lk 22:32).
- Peter first confesses Christ’s divinity (Mt 16:16).
- Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).
- Peter is regarded by the Jews (Acts 4:1-13) as the leader and spokesman of Christianity.
- Peter is regarded by the common people in the same way (Acts 2:37-41; 5:15).
- Jesus Christ uniquely associates himself and Peter in the miracle of the tribute money (Mt 17:24-27).
- Christ teaches from Peter’s boat, and the miraculous catch of fish follows (Lk 5:1-11): perhaps a metaphor for the pope as a “fisher of men” (Mt 4:19).
- Peter was the first apostle to set out for, and enter, the empty tomb (Lk 24:12; Jn 20:6).
- Peter is specified by an angel as the leader and representative of the apostles (Mk 16:7).
- Peter leads the apostles in fishing (Jn 21:2-3,11). The “bark” (boat) of Peter has been regarded by Catholics as a figure of the Church, with Peter at the helm.
- Peter alone casts himself into the sea to come to Jesus (Jn 21:7).
- Peter’s words are the first recorded and most important in the Upper Room before Pentecost (Acts 1:15-22).
- Peter takes the lead in calling for a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:22).
- Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to “preach the Gospel” in the Church era (Acts 2:14-36).
- Peter works the first miracle of the Church Age, healing a lame man (Acts 3:6-12).
- Peter utters the first anathema (Ananias and Sapphira) emphatically affirmed by God (Acts 5:2-11).
- Peter’s shadow works miracles (Acts 5:15).
- Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).
- Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).
- Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).
- Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).
- Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison—Acts 12:1-17).
- The whole Church (strongly implied) prays for Peter “without ceasing” when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).
- Peter presides over and opens the first council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterward accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).
- Paul distinguishes the Lord’s postresurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-5).
- Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28, 32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).
- Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67).
- Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John—Mt 17:1; 26:37, 40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).
- Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic Gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1, Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24).
- Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).
- Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.
- Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel”—an example of “binding and loosing.”
- Peter was the first “charismatic,” having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).
- Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).
- Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).
- Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).
- Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38, 43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but had not traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.
- Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for 15 days at the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.
- Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pt 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”
- Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pt 1:16-21).
- Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pt 3:15-16).
- Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pt 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.