ECFs said Peter wasn't the Rock?

[thessalonian]

The focus is all wrong on this thread. It doesn’t matter if 44 Fathers did say that Jesus is the Rock or Peter’s faith is the Rock (which some did). You see the Catholic Church allows for interprutations from different perspectives on a passage. There is the literal perspective from which there is no question that Peter is the rock. There are also spirtual perspectives that allow for Jesus to be the rock and certainly Peter’s faith was a component in his rockiness.

Actually that fathers do point out multiple interprutations gives credence to Catholic exegetical methods. The proof is in those fathers identified the rock in more than one fashion such as Augustine and Tertullian. I saw a study on this and may have it on my computer at home. If I do I will post it. This guy went through and catalogued all the quotations of Matt 16:18. Then the interprutations. There were I think 17 who identified the rock with Peter and a larger majority, perhaps 50 who identified it otherwise. There were a half a dozen however who identified the rock as Peter and Christ or Peter’s faith. NOWHERE HOWEVER did any Church father say it was a mistake to call Peter the rock. If it was a mistaken interprutation then surely some would have objected as Protestants do today. They quite clearly read eachother.

One thing to consider in all of this is that Peter is the Rock because of his relationship to Christ. Any faith he had that would make him a rock was a grace of God “flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my father in heaven”. Also making someone (christ) or something else (Peter’s faith) bibilically it does not logically follow that that excludes Peter. The scriptures tell us that Christ is the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11), yet they also tell us that Prophets and Apostles are (Eph 2:20). We are told that Christ is the light of the world in John. Yet, it also says “You are the light of the world”. We as the body of Christ are the light of the world and there is no contradiction.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

 

[john_ennis]

Well said.

Church Fathers who describe the Rock as being Peter’s profession, were certainly not all ignorant of the oft-written belief (of other Fathers) that Peter himself was the Rock, nor the fact that the plain words in Scripture could certainly be understood to mean Peter.

The fact that they don’t deny that Peter is being given a role by Christ as the Rock indicates that they have no desire to contradict this.

Peace.
John

 

[Aris]

thessalonian:

The focus is all wrong on this thread. It doesn’t matter if 44 Fathers did say that Jesus is the Rock or Peter’s faith is the Rock (which some did). You see the Catholic Church allows for interprutations from different perspectives on a passage. There is the literal perspective from which there is no question that Peter is the rock. There are also spirtual perspectives that allow for Jesus to be the rock and certainly Peter’s faith was a component in his rockiness.

It does matter because the “44 Fathers” perspective is taken from Non-Catholic apologists. So it does matter to non-catholics, because they take this as proof that the ECF did not take Peter as the Rock and that this is just a recent innovation by the Catholic Church.

What has been presented here is invaluable counter proof given by PhilVaz and Asteroid that there were no 44 Fathers rather there were 44 quotes. And we are presented convincing proof that all the Fathers quoted have also a corresponding quote that Peter was the Rock.

This is the correct way to explain to non-catholics by using facts to chip away at misconceptions and outright fallacies.

 

[thessalonian]

Aris:

It does matter because the “44 Fathers” perspective is taken from Non-Catholic apologists. So it does matter to non-catholics, because they take this as proof that the ECF did not take Peter as the Rock and that this is just a recent innovation by the Catholic Church.

What has been presented here is invaluable counter proof given by PhilVaz and Asteroid that there were no 44 Fathers rather there were 44 quotes. And we are presented convincing proof that all the Fathers quoted have also a corresponding quote that Peter was the Rock.

This is the correct way to explain to non-catholics by using facts to chip away at misconceptions and outright fallacies.

Ok, I agree. Let me put it another way. In the end they end up with egg on their faces.

 

[mike182d]

…and I’m sure Simon having his named changed to kepha the moment Christ said He would build his church on this kepha is entirely inconsequential.

 

[prodromos]

mike182d:

…and I’m sure Simon having his named changed to kepha the moment Christ said He would build his church on this kepha is entirely inconsequential.

Well I guess it is inconsequential then because Jesus gave Simon the name Peter when they first met in John 1:42

Christ is Risen!
John

 

[thessalonian]

prodromos:

Well I guess it is inconsequential then because Jesus gave Simon the name Peter when they first met in John 1:42

Christ is Risen!
John

What you say is true regarding when Peter got the name.
Matt 16:18 does not specify when Peter got the name. It is only an emphatic declaration of why the name was given and that Christ would build his Church on Peter.

 

[prodromos]

thessalonian:

What you say is true regarding when Peter got the name.
Matt 16:18 does not specify when Peter got the name. It is only an emphatic declaration of why the name was given and that Christ would build his Church on Peter.

But Christ did not say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church” did he. He said “on this rock I will build my Church”. You may interpret Christ’s words as you wish but you must never change them to something He did not say.

Christ is Risen!
John

 

[thessalonian]

prodromos:

But Christ did not say “You are Peter and on you I will build my church” did he. He said “on this rock I will build my Church”. You may interpret Christ’s words as you wish but you must never change them to something He did not say.

I
Christ is Risen!
John

don’t see that I am changing anything. Where have I? Let’s say that a football coach is looking for a quarterback. The coach was even a quarterback himself in high school. A young freshman comes up and throws the ball 70 yards right on the money. He says “Josh you are my quarterback and on this quarterback (as he turns to the rest of the team) I will build a championchip team.”. Now would anyone be mistaken as to who the quarterback would be. Oh it must be the coach right? Cephas means rock. I simply don’t see the problem. Further if Jesus were speaking about himself it does not make sense since in v. 19 he is clearly speaking about Peter. The only ambiguity in Christ’s words is from those who do not want Peter to be the rock. In those who see dichotomy at every turn.

Blessings

 

[prodromos]

thessalonian:

don’t see that I am changing anything. Where have I?

Of course you don’t, you’re Catholic . Unfortunately by stating that Christ will build His church on Peter, you exclude the interpretation arrived at by many Fathers that the “rock” is Peter’s confession. Thus you have removed something from scripture.

Let’s say that a football coach is looking for a quarterback. The coach was even a quarterback himself in high school. A young freshman comes up and throws the ball 70 yards right on the money. He says “Josh you are my quarterback and on this quarterback (as he turns to the rest of the team) I will build a championchip team.”.

Now you are adding stage directions to the bible as well. Is there no limit to your audacity? Matt 16:18-20 is all spoken to Peter in the singular as Catholics are always so keen to point out, so there is nothing to suggest that the words “and on this rock I will build My church” were directed to anyone other than Peter.

Now would anyone be mistaken as to who the quarterback would be. Oh it must be the coach right?

It’s a false analogy since we interpret “rock” as being Peter’s confession of Christ in this passage, not the coach. If you had expanded your analogy to have the freshman trained by the coach then the analogy could include the interpretation that the team would be built on the “technique” of the quarterback which was the coaches, imparted by him to Josh.

Cephas means rock. I simply don’t see the problem. Further if Jesus were speaking about himself it does not make sense since in v. 19 he is clearly speaking about Peter.

Jesus is not speaking about Himself though, He is talking about Peter’s confession. This is a strawman.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

 

[thessalonian]

“Of course you don’t, you’re Catholic . Unfortunately by stating that Christ will build His church on Peter, you exclude the interpretation arrived at by many Fathers that the “rock” is Peter’s confession. Thus you have removed something from scripture.”

No I do not. If you have read all that I posted on this subject you would see that you are misrepresenting my interprutation. I allow that Peter is the rock, based on his confession which is the source of his rockness (Christ), and in a spirtual interprutation that Christ is the rock, just as the Father’s allow for all three. But thank’s for playing.

 

[prodromos]

thessalonian:

No I do not. If you have read all that I posted on this subject you would see that you are misrepresenting my interprutation.

Please forgive me. I came into this thread late and had not read much of what went on before. I was responding only to what you posted after my entry into the fray.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

 

[thessalonian]

prodromos:

Please forgive me. I came into this thread late and had not read much of what went on before. I was responding only to what you posted after my entry into the fray.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

No sweat. You have 489 left. (70 times 7 times).

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

thessalonian:

The focus is all wrong on this thread. It doesn’t matter if 44 Fathers did say that Jesus is the Rock or Peter’s faith is the Rock (which some did). You see the Catholic Church allows for interprutations from different perspectives on a passage. There is the literal perspective from which there is no question that Peter is the rock. There are also spirtual perspectives that allow for Jesus to be the rock and certainly Peter’s faith was a component in his rockiness.

Actually that fathers do point out multiple interprutations gives credence to Catholic exegetical methods. The proof is in those fathers identified the rock in more than one fashion such as Augustine and Tertullian. I saw a study on this and may have it on my computer at home. If I do I will post it. This guy went through and catalogued all the quotations of Matt 16:18. Then the interprutations. There were I think 17 who identified the rock with Peter and a larger majority, perhaps 50 who identified it otherwise. There were a half a dozen however who identified the rock as Peter and Christ or Peter’s faith. NOWHERE HOWEVER did any Church father say it was a mistake to call Peter the rock. If it was a mistaken interprutation then surely some would have objected as Protestants do today. They quite clearly read eachother.

One thing to consider in all of this is that Peter is the Rock because of his relationship to Christ. Any faith he had that would make him a rock was a grace of God “flesh and blood hath not revealed this to you but my father in heaven”. Also making someone (christ) or something else (Peter’s faith) bibilically it does not logically follow that that excludes Peter. The scriptures tell us that Christ is the foundation of the Church (1 Cor 3:11), yet they also tell us that Prophets and Apostles are (Eph 2:20). We are told that Christ is the light of the world in John. Yet, it also says “You are the light of the world”. We as the body of Christ are the light of the world and there is no contradiction.

Hope that helps.

Blessings

However; if Catholics claim “Peter is called Rock by the ECFs” - they have made a claim that needs to be supported.​

If we mean “Peter’s faith is the Rock” - we should say as much, clearly.

What we cannot do, is change meanings in midstream, so that, after the other fellow has shown that that not all ECFs say “Peter is the Rock”, we reply, by saying that whether Peter, his faith, or something else is mentioned, “it all comes to the same thing”; we cannot do that, if that was not what our claim was to begin with. If we say “it all comes to the same thing”, we are shifting our ground; but, claiming that “Peter is called the Rock” by however many ECFs it may be, does imply that Peter’s person, not his faith or his confession of faith, is being called the rock. So - the rules of the discussion need to be clear before it begins.

IOW - what is the precise reasoning in theological claims ? Are they meant exclusively - or inclusively ? Is “Peter is the Rock” intended to imply “…therefore, Christ is not”; “…therefore, other Christians are not”; “…therefore, the other Apostles are not” ?

Peter, however rock-like, is only one of several in the Bible; so if the claim is meant exclusively, it comes up against other passages. Which meaning are we arguing for ? ##

 

[Aris]

The Catholic position is not hampered by exclusivity.

The Cathecism does not teach Peter is the Rock and then say that this is the only interpretation possible. The Cathecism actually expounds on the teaching that Peter is the Rock because of his faith and because he takes his Rockness from Christ.

It is the non-Catholic position that proposes that these interpretations are exclusive to each other.

Which leads them to the false conclusion that if an ECF said the Peter’s Faith was the rock, then the ECF must be meaning that Peter was not the Rock.

 

[thessalonian]

Aris:

The Catholic position is not hampered by exclusivity.

The Cathecism does not teach Peter is the Rock and then say that this is the only interpretation possible. The Cathecism actually expounds on the teaching that Peter is the Rock because of his faith and because he takes his Rockness from Christ.

It is the non-Catholic position that proposes that these interpretations are exclusive to each other.

Which leads them to the false conclusion that if an ECF said the Peter’s Faith was the rock, then the ECF must be meaning that Peter was not the Rock.

That summs up what I have been trying to say throughout this thread quite nicely. It is human to look for dichotomy but the scriptures are divine.

 

[Huiou_Theou]

A couple of comments.

The English does not quite capture the full emphasis of the Greek in that passage.

I say you are rock, and on this very same rock I will build my church (ek-klesia → out - calling = flock / governing assembly )

As an aside, there is a sense that Peter’s confession is meant even today.
I am uncomfortable (as a Catholic) of restricting the passage to mean that Peter alone and not also his profession of faith are meant.

In the ceremony of Pope Benidict, the profession which Peter made is emphasized, for Peter lives on in his successors – a communion with Peter in Eucharist and Profession of faith.
Not reincarnation, but communion.

 

[prodromos]

Aris:

The Catholic position is not hampered by exclusivity.

Aris, the Catholic position is entirely exclusive. It takes the position that the rock and confession upon which Christ will build His church is exclusively Peter and Peter’s. It takes the position that the bishops of Rome are the exclusive successors to Peter. The Orthodox church holds no such exclusive view.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

 

[thessalonian]

prodromos:

Aris, the Catholic position is entirely exclusive. It takes the position that the rock and confession upon which Christ will build His church is exclusively Peter and Peter’s. It takes the position that the bishops of Rome are the exclusive successors to Peter. The Orthodox church holds no such exclusive view.

Christos Anesti! Christ is Risen!
John.

No as a matter of fact you are not correct. It is Peter but it is based on Peter’s faith. And Christ is also a proper interprutation in a spiritual sense. Are you telling me that I don’t know what I believe?

 

[Aris]

Huiou Theou:

As an aside, there is a sense that Peter’s confession is meant even today.
I am uncomfortable (as a Catholic) of restricting the passage to mean that Peter alone and not also his profession of faith are meant.

Again that is not Catholic. From the Cathechism of the Catholic Church you will read that the Catholic Church does not exclude the interpretation of the Rock as the profession of Faith.

Do you have a copy of the Cathechism of the Catholic Church? If you can not find the portion explaining the Catholic position, please feel free to PM me and I will send you the numbers.