History of Petros

[heisenburg]

I know many of our protestant brethren believe that the Petros Petras arguement is key to showing that Christ did not institute a visible church with a visible custodian.

My question is simple. What is the earliest refrence to this arguement. My main concern is that even Martin Luther and the early reformers didnt agree thats what it meant. Though I could be mistaken.

Anyway, if anyone could provide some sources for its earliest refrence I woud appreciate it…

In Christ

 

[ABostonCatholic]

I remember reading in one of Saint Augustine’s sermons that this verse should be read in three senses: 1) that Christ is the Rock, 2) that the Church is the Rock, and that 3) Peter is the Rock. That probably will not help you much, since I have no idea what sermon it was, and there are a lot of them! But trust me, I remember reading it.

 

[Bishopite]

I remember reading in one of Saint Augustine’s sermons that this verse should be read in three senses: 1) that Christ is the Rock, 2) that the Church is the Rock, and that 3) Peter is the Rock. That probably will not help you much, since I have no idea what sermon it was, and there are a lot of them! But trust me, I remember reading it.

I’m not sure the first time it was used after Matthew wrote it. But here Tertullian writing about it in the third century.

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

You could replace “you” with “Rock” and since he is quoting Mt 16:18-19. Notice you is used the same way. Petros and Petra are simply masculine and feminine nouns meaning the same thing, Rock.

 

[Revelation13_16]

I remember reading in one of Saint Augustine’s sermons that this verse should be read in three senses: 1) that Christ is the Rock, 2) that the Church is the Rock, and that 3) Peter is the Rock. That probably will not help you much, since I have no idea what sermon it was, and there are a lot of them! But trust me, I remember reading it.

I have read similar, but IIRC I read there were two choices:

• Peter the rock
• Peter’s “belief in Christ” as the rock

Augustine seemed undecided in the passage I read, saying that it could be taken either way.

It’s very interesting, a topic I’d like to know more about eventually.

God Bless,
Rev

 

[PinoyCatholic]

There’s a slight problem with the “Peter’s belief in Christ” argument.

If I have the same belief in Christ that Peter had, and Jesus meant that He’d build His Church on my belief, does that mean I get the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and whatever I bind or loose on earth will be bound and loosed in heaven? That means just anybody can do the same thing. Anarchy ensues.

Remember that there were no verse divisions when Jesus made this declaration.

 

[aetratus]

Petros and Petra are simply masculine and feminine nouns meaning the same thing, Rock.

Right. And at the time that gospel was penned in Greek, there was (IIRC) no way of designating an object masculine/feminine or greater/lesser; the original Greek made no such distinction. It was a literary device conceived at a latter time. IOW, what we have in modern English is a transliteration (from the newer Greek) of a transliteration (from the older Greek) of a transliteration (from Aramaic). I’m too tired to find a thorough explanation, but there’s a nice start here and if you look in the NAB you should find a similar footnote for Matt 16:18. Perhaps when I’m less exhausted I’ll go find a better reference or someone else will in the meantime (hint!).

Peter, Pierce, Pierre, Petros, Kepha, whatever, they all mean rock. I can’t believe how much confusion a bit of Greek poetic license has caused for so many people.

 

[heisenburg]

So, from what I am hearing, none of the early christians used the Big Rock Little Rock argument. If this is true, when did it first arise…

I have my suspicions, but no proof…

In Christ

 

[Bishopite]

I have read similar, but IIRC I read there were two choices:

• Peter the rock
• Peter’s “belief in Christ” as the rock

Augustine seemed undecided in the passage I read, saying that it could be taken either way.

It’s very interesting, a topic I’d like to know more about eventually.

God Bless,
Rev

Protestantism looks to Scripture as only having a literal meaning or a figurative, an either or meaning. What they fail to recognize is the reality of having not just a literal or a figurative meaning, but a literal (which all other senses fall under) a spiritual and anagogical, moral and allegorical under the spiritual sense.
Catholic Catechism says…

"The senses of Scripture
**115 **According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two *senses *of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.
**116 **The literal sense is the meaning conveyed by the words of Scripture and discovered by exegesis, following the rules of sound interpretation: "All other senses of Sacred Scripture are based on the literal.
**117 **The spiritual sense. Thanks to the unity of God’s plan, not only the text of Scripture but also the realities and events about which it speaks can be signs.

1. The allegorical sense. We can acquire a more profound understanding of events by recognizing their significance in Christ; thus the crossing of the Red Sea is a sign or type of Christ’s victory and also of Christian Baptism.2. The moral sense. The events reported in Scripture ought to lead us to act justly. As St. Paul says, they were written “for our instruction”.
2. The anagogical sense (Greek: anagoge, “leading”). We can view realities and events in terms of their eternal significance, leading us toward our true homeland: thus the Church on earth is a sign of the heavenly Jerusalem. "

So when Catholicism says Peter IS the Rock that IS the literal sense of Mt 16:18 which all other senses are based and which the author (Matthew) intended to convey to the readers. Peter’s “belief in Christ” would be the spiritual/moral sense that Peter is acting just in his belief in Christ.

 

[Bishopite]

Right. And at the time that gospel was penned in Greek, there was (IIRC) no way of designating an object masculine/feminine or greater/lesser; the original Greek made no such distinction. It was a literary device conceived at a latter time. IOW, what we have in modern English is a transliteration (from the newer Greek) of a transliteration (from the older Greek) of a transliteration (from Aramaic). I’m too tired to find a thorough explanation, but there’s a nice start here and if you look in the NAB you should find a similar footnote for Matt 16:18. Perhaps when I’m less exhausted I’ll go find a better reference or someone else will in the meantime (hint!).

Peter, Pierce, Pierre, Petros, Kepha, whatever, they all mean rock. I can’t believe how much confusion a bit of Greek poetic license has caused for so many people.

Right back to you. I suppose as you’ve said we could go back to the original language of Jesus and the Apostles (Aramaic) and use the word kepha which only had one meaning big Rock. Jesus and the Apostles palestinian Jews wouldn’t speak to each other in Greek as their primary language but the language of the time, Aramaic.
I noticed you used the French word “Pierre” (Peter). Mt 16:18 in French uses the same word for Rock as Peter…
“Et moi, je te dis que tu es Pierre, et que sur cette pierre je bâtirai mon Église, et que les portes du séjour des morts ne prévaudront point contre elle.”

 

[heisenburg]

Hmmm.

I guess my next question is this… since there doesnt seem to be any early christian refrences, my followup question is what my suspicion is.

Did this arguement actually originate out of the American Great Revival during the mid 1800’s?

It seems a number of "Standard’ protetestant views came out of this era (like the “Left Behind” Rapture). Did this arguement develope out of the same time period?

Not trying to instigate a fight… I am realy and truely just trying to find the earliest recorded refrence to Peter being the littler rock, and Christ being the Big Rock. Obviously, the Catholic Church Teaches this is wrong… so, I am just trying to find when this arguement started in history. If it goes all the way back to Christ, why does there not seem to be any refrence for it. If there is, Please provide, I am more than willing to read…

In Christ