Yes, that is my understanding of them. They leave the mystery alone , and do not apply Aristotle (CC transubstantiation) understanding purposely.
Not so sure .Eventually, absolutely, but from the first, don’t think so.
Indeed. And this emphasis is also present in Eastern Catholicism, who accept Transubstantiation doctrinally, but still (validly) give it an air of mystery, which is the tradition in Eastern Christianity.
Shepherd of Hermas says Rock is Christ
Tertullian is all over the place, that rock is Christ , then Peter, then Peter but with no succession.
Cyprian says Jesus is rock ,then says Matt18 is all the bishops are the rock. In a later writing he alludes to primacy of Rome , but then later recants, revises those statements.
Augustine said Peter was rockmass , but also later recanted.
Blessings
Like I said, many figures in the Church could have, at one point or another, understood Matthew 16:18 one way or another – but the “rock is Peter” interpretation also has a
very early origin, and I find that, ultimately, given a linguistic analysis (which Augustine in the quote below offers) which honest
Protestant Biblical scholars seem to accept, the “rock is Peter” interpretation seems to be the most logical one to me.
Of course they did! Peter means rock. Since nouns are conjugated according to a perceived gender of the word, the greek word for rock, petra, was conjugated in the male form when applied to Peter, petros.
So, when the Church Fathers read in Greek:
You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church. (Mt 16:18)
Or:
Σὺ εἶ Πέτρος, καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν.They understood:
You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.
Therefore, it couldn’t be more evident that the rock where the Church was built was none other than Peter himself.
Pax Christi
Hi M,
In a previous post I held that even if one accepts Peter as rock, one can still differ on primacy and infallibility. Do these Protestant writers suggest the same ?
That is absolutely correct, and some Orthodox I’ve talked to hold this view, that while Peter
is the original rock that Jesus speaks of in Matthew 16, something happened along the way that made the Petrine See succumb to heterodoxy.
Also, as you may know, Protestantism is a wide label. That some see Peter as rock should not be surprising. Just wonder how many still don’t. P’s have their liberals and conservatives also.
Blessings
That is also correct – nevertheless, my understanding is that
unlike the Eastern Churches with valid Apostolic Succession, Protestants as a whole (perhaps not high church Anglicans and Lutherans) did away with the Sacraments (maybe not baptism) and a sacramental priesthood, so obviously a bishop, much less the bishop of Rome, was no longer needed. If I am mistaken, please do feel free to correct me.
No. Not Lutherans. And not (some) Anglicans. See post 85. Then again, “Protestant” is a rather worthless label, so maybe you didn’t mean them.
So, what are your flights of fancy of the “errors from the Church they came out of”?
As above, the silence has been deafening.
I also noticed this, and I have to say, I didn’t find the reference to Protestants as “red headed step children” to be amusing nor charitable, which is why I put it in quotes when I referenced it.
Except Protestants don’t tend to believe that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. Why do you think they lost bishops, sacraments, Apostolic Succession, all of that? Do you think they lost all that yet retained the Papacy?
