Identifying "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18

[Chafer_DTS]

There were another signs of Peter’s authority:[/qupte]

It is my view that Peter had the very same equal authority that all the other apostles had including the apostle Paul. I have the support of Eph 2:20 for that.The gift of apostleship was equal with them. There is a vast difference between calling Peter chief of the apostles and making a claim of being the visible head of the entire church on the earth. Peter himself says he is an Apostle and a fellow elder. Peter was an apostle to the Jews while the Apostle Paul was an apostle to the gentiles.

Apostolic Tradition has remains in the Catholic Church to this day. From the way be celebrate mass to the way prayer. From our Written Tradition to are Oral Tradition. Same goes for ways of worship

 

[LionHeart777]

SwissGuard25;9447331:

There were another signs of Peter’s authority:[/qupte]

It is my view that Peter had the very same equal authority that all the other apostles had including the apostle Paul. I have the support of Eph 2:20 for that.The gift of apostleship was equal with them. There is a vast difference between calling Peter chief of the apostles and making a claim of being the visible head of the entire church on the earth. Peter himself says he is an Apostle and a fellow elder. Peter was an apostle to the Jews while the Apostle Paul was an apostle to the gentiles.

Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants would disagree with that claim.

Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, Old Catholics, etc., etc. would disagree with your view on Baptismal Regeneration? I don’t suppose you will be changing your mind because of that fact though?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

regarding your first point, it doesn’t address my original point:

"Of the 44 mentioned (if this tally is correct), how many:

a) separated St. Peter from his confession?

b) repudiated the interpretation that St. Peter is the Rock?"

You have to take into account the different contexts in which the Father’s were speaking and the fact that, the Catholic Church even understands that verse that way today (in a sense.) again both/and.

What do you mean in the same sense as Vatican I? My feeling here is that you may be looking at things anachronistically and not allowing for legitimate development of Doctrine.

You said:

"Over 44 chuch fathers I said held that the Rock was either Peter’s confession of faith or that it was Christ Himself as the Rock. That is in contradication to Vatican I’s view of Matthew 16:18. "

No, it does not, as both can be true as Marco Polo pointed out (again both/and)

The unanimous consent of the Father’s is not reduced to mathematics; this is a common misconception.

My point on asking about Baptismal Regeneration is that if what the Father’s taught really influenced your Theology, than you would hold to Baptismal Regeneration as every one of them taught it on St. John 3:5. But you are using this tally of 44 as some authority and really you do not hold to your own standard as it seems to me.

I have 3 things to say about your post. 1 ) I hold Roman Catholicism to standards of which they set upon themselves which they say they follow. I dont place my own standards on them. That would not be a fair thing to do. I only showed they violated their standards and not mine. 2 ) Your post is evidently filled with anarchanism as a basic foundation for your statements. 3 ) I was explained and taught long ago what unaniamous consent of the church fathers means. I do not want it to be redefined just to avoid what I pointed out on the matter. Otherwise language loses it’s meaning when we say things such as " we follow the unianimous consent of the church fathers " and see differently when we read them for ourselves. There is no need for you to do that really. All you have to do is simply say you and Vatican I disagree with these 44 or so church fathers and that would be the end of that.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

Chafer DTS;9447427:

Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Catholics, Old Catholics, etc., etc. would disagree with your view on Baptismal Regeneration? I don’t suppose you will be changing your mind because of that fact though?

I am saying they my disagree with you view. I reject baptismal regeneration in all forms. But that is irrelevent to the issue. The point is the claim of the unianimous consent of the church fathers. Vatican I claimed this while I never do.

 

[adrift]

All you have to do is simply say you and Vatican I disagree with these 44 or so church fathers and that would be the end of that.

How do I know you have correctly stated what the 44(whoever they are)meant? How do I know that what you state is correct about these 44. All you have to do is identfy who you are speaking about.

 

[LionHeart777]

I have 3 things to say about your post. 1 ) I hold Roman Catholicism to standards of which they set upon themselves which they say they follow. I dont place my own standards on them. That would not be a fair thing to do. I only showed they violated their standards and not mine. 2 ) Your post is evidently filled with anarchanism as a basic foundation for your statements. 3 ) I was explained and taught long ago what unaniamous consent of the church fathers means. I do not want it to be redefined just to avoid what I pointed out on the matter. Otherwise language loses it’s meaning when we say things such as " we follow the unianimous consent of the church fathers " and see differently when we read them for ourselves. There is no need for you to do that really. All you have to do is simply say you and Vatican I disagree with these 44 or so church fathers and that would be the end of that.

1. You have given the impression (at least to me I’m sorry if I misunderstood) that the fact that 44 Fathers interpreted the passage in a certain way holds weight with you personally
2. I don’t quite understand? anarchy?
3. When Catholic Church uses a term like “unanimous consent of the Fathers” they get to define the term since it expresses what it means. Nowhere does the Catholic Church (please cite me an example if I’m wrong) equate that term in a strict mathematical sense.

 

[LionHeart777]

LionHeart777;9447431:

I am saying they my disagree with you view. I reject baptismal regeneration in all forms. But that is irrelevent to the issue. The point is the claim of the unianimous consent of the church fathers. Vatican I claimed this while I never do.

My point was if it does not change your mind that they disagree with you, how can you expect it to matter very much to us?

 

[Chafer_DTS]

How do I know you have correctly stated what the 44(whoever they are)meant? How do I know that what you state is correct about these 44. All you have to do is identfy who you are speaking about.

The late Archbishop Kendrick of St. Louis, U.S.A listed the 5 different interpretations of Matthew 16:18 but was not permitted to deliver his speech at Vatican I about it but it was printed out though afterwards. This is your own sources. It is about 2:55am so that can wait until tomorrow. Some on the list you will know when you see their name.

 

[adrift]

…I’m quite pedestrian… so please suffer me just a little… so why would Jesus change Simon’s name and then tell him… by the way, Cephas/Kephas/Peter, I am the Rock on which I will build my Church… so there!

Maran atha!

Angel

This is a question that is never answered.

 

[Chafer_DTS]

1. You have given the impression (at least to me I’m sorry if I misunderstood) that the fact that 44 Fathers interpreted the passage in a certain way holds weight with you personally

My issue is what Vatican I claimed. While I may personally agree with Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants I feel it is unimportant. I am just pointing out Vatican I made a much overstated claim when it is not true based on the church father writings themselves and I hold them to their own standards.

1. I don’t quite understand? anarchy?

The reading back of present day concepts back to a prior priod of time when it did not exist.

1. When Catholic Church uses a term like “unanimous consent of the Fathers” they get to define the term since it expresses what it means. Nowhere does the Catholic Church (please cite me an example if I’m wrong) equate that term in a strict mathematical sense.

So unianimous consent does not mean unianimous consent ? Lanuage loses it’s meaning when things get redefined like this. Words have meanings to them . Unianimous consent in it’s meaning IS an all hands vote of agreement on sometime. For example in a boxing match we have 3 judges .Each scores round by round and vote on the winner. Then all 3 different score cards are read and we see the winner on something or a draw. If a fighter wins on all 3 score cards from each of the Judges it is called a unanimous decision. Likewise when we read all the church fathers who spoke on Matthew 16:18 a majority of them held it out of the total number of church fathers who spoke on it held was either Peter’s confession of Faith or Christ Himself. Key word is unanimous consent. If we follow what you say words lose it’s meaning.

 

[LionHeart777]

Look Chafer DTS (I’m guessing Chafer of Dallas Theological Seminary, I used to be very much influenced by their Theology as a Protestant),

Please forgive me if I have been uncharitable. I think that you need to re-examine what the Catholic Church means when it talks about the unanimous consent of the Fathers, as I believe that you are mistaken on what that means to the Catholic Church. Also, I think you are way over simplifying something that is complex, namely, the context about why those various Father’s were interpreting the passage in that way (as I believe least one had a specific purpose.) Also the fact that the Catholic Church in it’s Catechism interprets the verse the very same way today (as Marco Polo pointed out.) This should tell you that, at least for the Catholic Church (if I’m not mistaken), one can interpret the verse that way without denying the other interpretation and that it is an issue of both/and rather than either/or. If this is so for the Catholic Church why do you suppose it would be untrue for various Church Fathers (who are part of the Catholic Church)?

 

[SaintPatrick333]

SwissGuard25;9447331:

Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants would disagree with that claim.

This is off topic but you keep mentioning that. Why throw protestants in there? Protestants have never had apostolic succession. They have never had valid teaching authority. None of their ministers are validly ordained. Doesn’t matter what sect they belong too, the teaching is incomplete at best or heretical at worst. Theologically, protestantism falls to pieces against the Truth of Scriptures and Oral tradition. You keep trying to slide protestant beliefs in there with apostolic churches as though it is somehow validated because it agrees on one issue. Agreeing on one issue does not negate the fact that protestants deny much of what Christ taught. Every ecclesiastic community they belong too is in schism with Christ’s One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christ preached unity. He created one Church. One system of beliefs. The 35,000 cherry picked, watered down, make it up as you go versions of protestantism are without substance. Since we were on the subject of the early church and early church teachings/beliefs I figured I’d point that out.

 

[LionHeart777]

My issue is what Vatican I claimed. While I may personally agree with Eastern Orthodox, Old Catholics and Protestants I feel it is unimportant. I am just pointing out Vatican I made a much overstated claim when it is not true based on the church father writings themselves and I hold them to their own standards.

The reading back of present day concepts back to a prior priod of time when it did not exist.

So unianimous consent does not mean unianimous consent ? Lanuage loses it’s meaning when things get redefined like this. Words have meanings to them . Unianimous consent in it’s meaning IS an all hands vote of agreement on sometime. For example in a boxing match we have 3 judges .Each scores round by round and vote on the winner. Then all 3 different score cards are read and we see the winner on something or a draw. If a fighter wins on all 3 score cards from each of the Judges it is called a unanimous decision. Likewise when we read all the church fathers who spoke on Matthew 16:18 a majority of them held it out of the total number of church fathers who spoke on it held was either Peter’s confession of Faith or Christ Himself. Key word is unanimous consent. If we follow what you say words lose it’s meaning.

Here is a good read on the Catholic Church and the unanimous consent of the Fathers:

socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/unanimous-consent-of-church-fathers.html

Perhaps this will eliminate what I believe to be a “straw man” argument that you are making, and that many others make too–just out of simple misunderstanding.

I will quote one part that is extraordinarily relevant:

Any given passage of scripture may have several valid applications and they were all appropriated by the Fathers depending on the matter at hand. Thus, a Father may refer to Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, or Peter’s confession as the Rock. This in not unusual or unexpected. It certainly does not negate the literal intent of Matthew, nor does it invalidate the unanimous consent of the Fathers.

 

[ahs]

The main point is they did not have the same interpretation of Matthew 16:18 as Vatican I in 187ad has on it. Vatican I was a departure from the general position of the church fathers.

Do you mean 1870 AD? And do mean departing from this position, from 189 AD (and I mean 189AD):

Irenaeus

“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Or do you mean this position from 251-253 AD:

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). … On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church” (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and b.asphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14). *

catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-i

By teh way, you never answered which “44 church fathers” you were talking about…

 

[pablope]

Roman Catholicism would also disagree with Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics on this issue too. Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking. The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

Protestants hold that the " Rock " as refering either to Peter’s confession of faith or that Jesus Himself is the " Rock " generally speaking.

Okay…can you explain how you can separate the changing of the name of Peter…to his confession of faith?

Can you demonstrate how Jesus would build the Church based on Peter’s confession of faith alone?

Well, one more thing…suppose it is indeed Peter’s confession…at least CC was founded on the faith of Peter…and now contrast this with how protestantism was founded…not on the confession of faith of Luther…but his rejection of authority and disobedience…so which one would you rather follow…based on a confession of faith? Or based on rejection of authority and disobedience?

 

[pablope]

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

Can you explain this futher…the faithful confession of Christ.?

So, what did exactly Christ confess to? What would Christ need to confess about, since He is already God (unless you think Jesus is not God)?

And how did God build the Church based on His confession?

 

[pablope]

Roman Catholicism
Over 44 church fathers held to this view too. Thus it was the majority view point historically speaking.

The basic issue is over Vatican I on this issue. Protestants, Eastern Orthodox and Old Catholics stand in contrast againist Roman Catholicism .

So, you made a count yourself? Or are you just quoting someone who did? And why would you believe that someone, if it is not you?

And is truth determined of what God spoke determined by counting the majority?

Is John Chrysostom among them?

, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” Homily 54, section 3.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, . . . THIS VERY PETER, AND WHEN I NAME PETER, I NAME THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, THAT FIRM FOUNDATION, the great Apostles, the first of the disciples” (Hom. 3, de Poenit.).

“[Peter] always is the first to begin the discourse. Lo, there were a hundred and twenty (Acts 1:15); and he asks for one out of the whole multitude. Justly: he has the first authority in the matter, as having had all entrusted to him. For to him Christ said, and thou being converted, confirm thy brethren’ ” (Acts of the Apostles, Homily 3 in The Faith of Catholics, ed. by Rev. T. J. Capel [New York and Cincinnati: Fr. Pustet & Co., 1885],

Why did Christ shed His blood? That He might obtain possession of those very sheep, WHICH HE ENTRUSTED TO PETER, AND TO HIS SUCCESSORS. Naturally then did Christ say, Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his lord shall MAKE RULER OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD.’” (The Priesthood, NPNF, p.39; IT. I Il. Ii De Sacerd. N. I pg. 454).

How about Cyprian of Carthage:

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He
says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates
of hell will not overcome it. And to you I
will give the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatever things you bind on
earth shall be bound also in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth, they shall be
loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says
to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my
sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and
to him He gives the command to feed the
sheep; and although He assigns a like
power to all the Apostles, yet He founded
a single chair, and He established by His
own authority a source and an intrinsic
reason for that unity. Indeed, the others
were that also which Peter was; but a
primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is
made clear that there is but one Church
and one chair. So too, all are shepherds,
and the flock is shown to be one, fed by
all the Apostles in single-minded accord.
If someone does not hold fast to this unity
of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds
the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter
upon whom the Church was built, can he
still be confident that he is in the
Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251).
Reply With Quote

 

[Nicea325]

I take it you disagree with Eastern Orthodox on that ? Eastern Orthodox does predate Roman Catholicism historically speaking. Eastern Orthodox on that have 44 church fathers for their position. Guess apostolic tradition is not being followed by Roman Catholicism but rather Eastern Orthodox , Old Catholics and Protestants.

OE predates Roman Catholicism? Where do you get your biased and perverted historical information? I take it you did not know the term “Roman” refers to a specific rite and the church calls itself Catholic. The EO have 44 fathers-and? The Western also many ECF on its side-and? How do figure Apostolic Tradition is not being followed when the Roman See is one of the ancient ones? Protestants follow Apostolic Traditions? Very few…very few. Denominations is a Protestant position,not an Apostolic one.

 

[adrift]

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

According to the web site

The Orthodox Study Bible is inconsistent with the faith of the fathers, and I will put my money on the Greek fathers rather than an 1984 Amercian publication.

•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)

 

[adrift]

Peter/rock is a play on the word for " rock " in both Aramaic and Greek ( petroslpetra ) . This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to " the faith of His confession " ( JohnChr ) . The true Rock is Christ Himself ( 1 Cor. 10:4 ) , and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ. ( The Orthodox Study Bible, pg. 1299, note on Matt. 16:18 )

So, you made a count yourself? Or are you just quoting someone who did? And why would you believe that someone, if it is not you?

And is truth determined of what God spoke determined by counting the majority?

Is John Chrysostom among them?

, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ that is, on the faith of his confession.” Homily 54, section 3.

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, . . . THIS VERY PETER, AND WHEN I NAME PETER, I NAME THAT UNBROKEN ROCK, THAT FIRM FOUNDATION, the great Apostles, the first of the disciples” (Hom. 3, de Poenit.).

Chafer you recommend that we read the Orthodox Study Bible. Why? You have this book saying that John Chrysostom saying that it is Peter’s faith. What you post may not be fair to the book you use but what you quoted has no source. It only states that John Chrysostom supposedly said but not where. As you can see there is another quote from John Chrysostom that does not uphold what your study bible asserts.

This is a blog that counters your study Bible.

Particular to your point is

Some of the Church fathers do speak of Christ or of Peter’s confession as “the Rock” of Matt 16:18, ALL of these SAME Church fathers ALSO speak of Peter himself as the Rock. In other words, the confession of Peter is in relation to Peter. It says something about him, and his faith. In this respect, it was not an either-or proposition for our ancient Christian forefathers, but a “both-and” proposition. Here are what the fathers (and some other scholars of the ancient Church) have to say.

I know others have told you the same as this blogger does. It is not an either or but both. Your issue than with Vatican I is baseless.