Early Church Fathers and Peter as the Rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter spedteacherita
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument
Peter is the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

St. Gregory Nazianzus

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). … and "Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … “[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. “Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. “The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

St. John Chrysostom

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. “Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. “Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession.” (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
 
Protestant Scholar on Augustine’s View of Rome

J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978):

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments…but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]…It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome…By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms…The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)
 
How protestants misuse the ECFs to support Sola Scriptora

Irenaeus, (130-202), “We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than those by whom the gospel came to us; which gospel they truly preached; but afterward, by the will of God, they delivered to us in the Scriptures, to be for the future the foundation and pillar of our faith,” (Adv. H. 3:1)
Read this with UPPER CASE emphasis:
“We have known the method of our salvation by no other means than THOSE BY WHOM the gospel THEY TRULY PREACHED…THEY DELIVERED TO US…”

—Irenaeus is explicitly talking about HUMAN BEINGS who have preached the gospel and passed on the Scriptures, and the direct Scriptural allusion (1 Tim 3:15) these same human beings are identified as THE CHURCH as “the foundation and pillar of faith” and NOT “Scripture”

B. Clement of Alexandria (150?-213?), “They that are ready to spend their time in the best things will not give over seeking for truth until they have found the demonstration from the Scriptures themselves,” (Stromata 7:16:3)
–Scripture is useful, even ESSENTIAL for confirming doctrine but this does NOT state the ONLY source of true teaching is from Scripture. Bear in mind the Apostle Peter warned against private interpretation apart from the teaching of the Church (2 Peter 1:20-21 & 3:15-16)–One CANNOT claim to be inspired by the Holy Spirit in interpreting Scripture if one contradicts the definate teaching of the Church.
 
C. Origen (185? - 252), “No man ought, for the confirmation of doctrines, to use books which are not canonized Scriptures,” (Tract. 26 in Matt.)
–Like Clement of Alexandria, Origen does NOT claim “only scripture alone” let alone “private interpretation by the individual with his own copies of scripture”
Well, what did Origen think was scripture?
For the OT Palestinian canon AND Letter of Jeremiah from Septuagint.
For the NT:
Origen accepted:
Four Gospels
Acts,
1 Peter,
1 John
Revelation.
Origen Disputed:
2 Peter,
2 and 3 John,
James,
Jude,
Didache
Also refered to Epistle of Barnabas as Catholic epistle (a term now applied to all seven non-Pauline epistles)
He also considered Shepherd of Hermas as scripture
He apparently also accepted as authoritative The Gospel according to Hebrews and Acts of Paul and some other books.
Notice Origen did NOT include ANY Pauline epistle (including Hebrews)???
So, Origen’s “scripture” significantly departed from what Protestants consider as complete and authoritative. This would be true of any list of Scripture until the late 4th century CATHOLIC councils settled the issue (including the 7 Deuterocannical books Protestants reject).
 
D. St. Cyprian of Carthage (200? - 258), “Whence comes this tradition? Does it descend from the Lord’s authority, or from the commands and epistles of the apostles? For those things are to be done which are there written … If it be commanded in the gospels or the epistles and Acts of the Apostles, then let this holy tradition be observed,” (Cyprian of Carthage, Ep. 74 ad Pompeium).
–Once again Scripture provides confirmation or denial of some particular Tradition, this does NOT address particular Traditions Scripture does NOT ADDRESS AT ALL–like the canon of Scripture itself!
–Once again, Scripture confirms “True Tradition” but not one thing implys ONLY Scripture is authoritative uopn the believer apart from Tradition let alone apart from the Church.
BTW, notice Cyprian states BOTH “…commands and epistles…”–so, right in there, we have BOTH Oral Tradition as well as Written Tradition.
 
“The Holy Scriptures, given by inspiration of God, are of themselves sufficient toward the discovery of truth. (Orat. adv. Gent., ad cap.) The Catholic Christians will neither speak nor endure to hear anything in religion that is a stranger to Scripture; it being an evil heart of immodesty to speak those things which are not written,” (Athanasius, Exhort. ad Monachas)
—At the risk of being repetitive, Scripture confirms “True Tradition” but not one thing implys ONLY Scripture is authoritative uopn the believer apart from Tradition let alone apart from the Church.
ii. "5. Again it is not tedious to speak of the [books] of the New Testament. These are… [the FIRST EVER RECORDED listing of the NT canon as pretty much every Christian group now accepts]…
…These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.’ " (Athanasius, Festal Letter 39:5-6)
–Right in the quote cited, Athanasius is refering to the CANON of the NT and NOT about the “self-sufficiency of written scripture as a rule of faith”–unless you want to claim Jesus proclaimed “ONLY the OT Scriptures are necessary as a rule of faith!”
iii. “Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture.” (Athanasius, De Synodis, 6)
–Athanasius, often running for his life from the Arians, while saying the truth of the Trinity is in Scripture, also says it STILL was absolutley necessary for an Ecumenical Council of the Church (i.e. The Magesterium) to clarify what was potential obscure in Scripture and declare it “exactly”, and the Arians not liking the result (and holding to THEIR scriptutal interpretations) demanded NEW councils–which, circa 330-360 they very well may have dominated.
 
F. Ambrose (340? - 396), “How can we use those things which we do not find in the Holy Scriptures?” (Ambr. Offic., 1:23).

and…

G. Cyril of Jerusalem (315? - 386), “Not even the least of the divine and holy mysteries of the faith ought to be handed down without the divine Scriptures. Do not simply give faith to me speaking these things to you except you have the proof of what I say from the divine Scriptures. For the security and preservation of our faith are not supported by ingenuity of speech, but by the proofs of the divine Scriptures,” (Cat. 4)

–ONCE AGAIN, Scripture confirms “True Tradition” but not one thing implys ONLY Scripture is authoritative upon the believer apart from Tradition let alone apart from the Church.

H. Jerome (342? - 420), “Those things which they make and find, as it were, by apostolical tradition, without the authority and testimony of Scripture, the word of God smites. (ad Aggai 1) As we deny not those things that are written, so we refuse those things that are not written. That God was born of a virgin we believe, because we read it; that Mary did marry after she was delivered we believe not, because we do not read it,” (Adv. Helvidium)

–This citation is incredibly ironic because the entire point of “Against Helvidium” was St Jerome defending the Perpetual Virginity of Mary the mother of Jesus, a “Catholic Tradition”, which almost all Protestantism REJECTS. The Blessed Virgin Mary remaining a virgin AFTER Jesus’ birth is NOT EXPLICIT in Scripture (though it is implied and supported!). It was ONLY Oral Apostolic Tradition that clearly defined this teaching. So Jerome is ONLY refering to a FALSE tradition, namely that of the turned-to-heresy Origen who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top