Matthew 16:18 myths

[ezeekl]

No, Augustine doesn’t slam the door; he even says “let the reader decide.” Does that mean I have the choice to decide which one is true?

Why wouldn’t Augustine know such an obvious truth?

How could he get this so wrong; honestly, how? He’s Augustine… If it was so obvious he would have known. I can’t wrap my mind around how he could make this mistake.

It is not a matter of Augustine getting it “so wrong”. If Augustine slammed the door on other interpretations then He would be getting it “so wrong”. But he doesn’t do that. He leaves the door wide open and by doing so acknowledges other interpretations as also being correct.

P.S. Augustine is one of the Doctors of the Church. A title given to only a very few individuals. I would dare to say that if Augustine slammed the door on this point he would not be declared a Doctor of the Church but would suffer the same fate as Tertullian, another great theologian who lapsed into heresy and not have even the status of a canonized saint.

 

[dronald]

It is not a matter of Augustine getting it “so wrong”. If Augustine slammed the door on other interpretations then He would be getting it “so wrong”. But he doesn’t do that. He leaves the door wide open and by doing so acknowledges other interpretations as also being correct.

He acknowledges other interpretations may be correct, but he leaned differently from the Church that exists now. Why?

P.S. Augustine is one of the Doctors of the Church. A title given to only a very few individuals. I would dare to say that if Augustine slammed the door on this point he would not be declared a Doctor of the Church but would suffer the same fate as Tertullian, another great theologian who lapsed into heresy and not have even the status of a canonized saint.

I know. I agreed that he didn’t slam the door but left it open to interpretation. Augustine didn’t agree with you and said it was up for interpretation 1600 years ago. Why? Shouldn’t he have known better being so close to the Tradition?

 

[ezeekl]

He acknowledges other interpretations may be correct, but he leaned differently from the Church that exists now. Why?

I am not so sure that he “learned differently” Why? I don’t know he doesn’t tell us.

QUOTE=dronald;12277066]I know. I agreed that he didn’t slam the door but left it open to interpretation. Augustine didn’t agree with you and said it was up for interpretation 1600 years ago. Why? Shouldn’t he have known better being so close to the Tradition?

I get the impression that you view this as sort of an all or nothing type of situation. Judging from what he wrote, Augustine is not in the least dogmatic about Peter not being the rock on which the church is founded. For example look at this quote from Augustine:

"“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. … In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

One thing which we have all overlooked. Augustine was apparently not well versed in the Greek language. Raised in the Western empire his knowlwdge did not come from sources such as the original texts of the early Christian writers but rather the Latin Vulgate and Latin translations of Greek texts. But there is more. Here are quotations from Augustine wherein he calls Peter the rock:

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, 'Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ "
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

Continued…

 

[ezeekl]

Continuing…

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”
Retractations,1:21(A.D. 427),in GILES, 177

Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, 'Peter having been named after this rock ’
(Retractations 1:21).

The above taken from the following website:

forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=12277066

 

[dronald]

You’ll have to help me along here; but aren’t his retractions a change of something he believed? That is, he thought Peter as the rock, changed that Peter is not the rock but still admitted that the reader may decide?

I know Augustine was not infallible, but a doctrine that should be considered so obvious if it had been so deep in tradition should have been accepted flat out by Augustine.

I’m no expert, so feel free to correct me.

Also, on your statement of the Greek language; I still believe Augustine would have done his homework. I’ll also admit that the Greek Orthodox see the passage differently than you, and they know Greek quite well.

 

[spina1953]

I am now thinking that this successors to the Chair of Peter was not a big thing to the Apostles in that it was understood by them that Peter was as their leader was given the power by Christ to determine who would succeed him as the head or leader of the Church Christ founded on Peter the rock… If there was a problem with that I would think that the Apostle John would have said something about it, if it were not true that Peter did not have authority as the rock that Christ built His Church on.

 

[Mystophilus]

did any of these early church writers unequivically deny that Peter and the rock mentioned in Mt 16:18 are one and the same? I think that is the point you have to show if your contention is to be considered as having any merit.

Actually, no, it is not. My “contention” is, as stated in the OP, that the interplay of the two terms supports Petrine primacy. The existence of the interplay is demonstrated in the fact that these early Church writers (the majority in Lampe’s list, although he does not claim to have used any proportional sampling) understood that πετρα and πετρος were not simply synonymous.

 

[Duane1966]

You’ll have to help me along here; but aren’t his retractions a change of something he believed? That is, he thought Peter as the rock, changed that Peter is not the rock but still admitted that the reader may decide?

I know Augustine was not infallible, but a doctrine that should be considered so obvious if it had been so deep in tradition should have been accepted flat out by Augustine.

I’m no expert, so feel free to correct me.

Also, on your statement of the Greek language; I still believe Augustine would have done his homework. I’ll also admit that the Greek Orthodox see the passage differently than you, and they know Greek quite well.

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/10/st-john-chrysostom-and-st-augustine-on.html?m=1

 

[dronald]

catholicdefense.blogspot.com/2011/10/st-john-chrysostom-and-st-augustine-on.html?m=1

I read it, and it still didn’t explain why Augustine would belive Matthew 16:18 contrary to the official Catholic belief. Especially a man as learned as him.

He focused more on John Chrysostom than an explanation on Augustine.

 

[Duane1966]

Augustine quotes about Peter

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”
Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.”
Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “
Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?”
In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.”
In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.”
In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

This comment was posted on an earlier forum on Augustine’s Retractations. “Augustine actually enjoins his readers to choose for themselves which interpretation to believe. If he was actually rejecting one of his own interpretations, then it would have been unconscionable of him as a bishop to permit his readers to adhere to such an interpretation.”

 

[Duane1966]

Four questions

1 What is the significance of being first among equals? Is it just an honorary title?

2 Why is Simon the only Apoostle that Jesus changes the name? What made him so special?

 

[Mystophilus]

Simon was not the first “Rocky”
We have at least two records of Πετρων (“rocky / of the rocks”) being used as a personal name before Simon: in the C3rd BC and in 78 BC (Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit 149,8 and 135, according to BGAD). We also have a reference in Plutarch’s Moralia 422d to a Damascene by the same name.

Gender-Switching in the Greek Scriptures
Some people imagine that πετρος was only used because feminine πετρα could not have been used for a man. However, in the LXX (a Jewish translation of the Scriptures), in 2 Kings 18:21, we find ‘ραβδος, a feminine noun for “reed”, used for the Pharoah of Egypt, a man; in Joshua 23:13, βολις, a feminine noun for “javeline”, is used for the peoples of Canaan; in Isaiah 51:1, πετρα, a feminine noun, is used for Abraham and Sarah together (and Greek defaulted to using a masculine, not a feminine, to show gender in mixed-sex groups). This is not confined to the Old Testament. In Romans 16:5, Paul describes Epainetos, a man, as the απαρχη, a feminine noun for “first fruit”. Likewise, the “root of Jesse” in Romans 15:12 and Isaiah 11:10 is ‘η ριζα του ιεσσαι , another feminine noun. The claim that Jews could not use a feminine noun for a man is simply incorrect.

Lampe’s list
For those who find Lampe too hard to read, here is his list of the early Church writers who identify Simon with πετρα in Mt 16:18: Origen, Homily 5.4 on Exodus, On First Principles 3.2.5, Commentary on John 5.3; Joannes Monachus, Hymn on Peter 5; Clementine Homilies 17.19; Pope Leo I, epistle 28; Council of Chalcedon, act 3.

Here is his list of the early Church writers who identify someone or something other than Simon with πετρα in Mt 16:18: Origen, Against Celsus 6.77, Selections on Exodus 17.6, Commentary on Exodus 33:22-23, Commentary on Matthew 12.10, 12.11, 12.12, Sermon on Matthew 139, Homily on Jeremiah 16.2; Gregory Nazianzen, Orations 26.9; John of Jerusalem V, Tract against Iconoclasts 16; Basil of Cappadocian Caesarea, Book of the Holy Spirit 31; Procopius of Gaza, Commentary on Exodus 33:21; the Liturgy of St. James; Hippolytus of Rome, On Theophany 9; Theodoret of Cyrene, Commentary on the Song of Songs 2.14 (2.71); Hermas, Similitudes 9.2.1; Eusebius of Caesarea, Preparation for the Gospel 1.3, Commentary on the Psalms 17:5, Commentary on Isaiah* 28:16-17; Modestus of Jerusalem, Fragment of a Homily on the Perfume-bearing Women.

These lists should not be taken as exclusive of one another. As is most obvious with Origen, understanding that the Church was not built upon Peter alone does not necessitate believing that the Church was not built upon Peter, nor does believing that the Church was built upon Peter necessitate believing that the Church was built upon Peter alone.

Going back to Isaiah 51:1-2, it is worth looking at the connection between that and Mt 16:18:
Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness, ye that seek the LORD: look unto the rock πετρα in the LXX] whence ye are hewn, and to the hole of the pit whence ye are digged. Look unto Abraham your father, and unto Sarah that bare you: for I called him alone, and blessed him, and increased him.

This is very much the idea expressed by the πετρα-πετρος interplay of Mt 16:18.*

 

[Mystophilus]

I read it, and it still didn’t explain why Augustine would belive Matthew 16:18 contrary to the official Catholic belief. Especially a man as learned as him.

I think that you might be misunderstanding something here regarding how Augustine, and others, understood the passage: given the interrelationship between the general πετρα and the specific πετρος, it is entirely reasonable and not at all contradictory to describe the Church as being built upon Peter and to describe the Church as being built upon other things (Christ/believers in general/faith, etc). This also happens very obviously with Origen, who, as Lampe shows, placed the foundation of the Church on Peter and on many others as well.

 

[ezeekl]

I read it, and it still didn’t explain why Augustine would belive Matthew 16:18 contrary to the official Catholic belief. Especially a man as learned as him.

He focused more on John Chrysostom than an explanation on Augustine.

What makes you think it is contrary to the official Catholic belief?

If you check the Catechoism of the Catholic Church you will find these paragraphs:

“552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”.

"424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

Doesn’t sound like Augustine believed something that was contrary to the Catholic faith. So where did you get your information that it was? I would like to read your source.

 

[dronald]

What makes you think it is contrary to the official Catholic belief?

If you check the Catechoism of the Catholic Church you will find these paragraphs:

“552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Our Lord then declared to him: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.” Christ, the “living Stone”, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.”.

"424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

Doesn’t sound like Augustine believed something that was contrary to the Catholic faith. So where did you get your information that it was? I would like to read your source.

Again, it’s in Retractions. Augustine seems to admit that he held your view but has since come to believe that Christ is the rock, but leaves it up to the reader’s own interpretation:

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”
Retractations,1:21

 

[ezeekl]

Again, it’s in Retractions. Augustine seems to admit that he held your view but has since come to believe that Christ is the rock, but leaves it up to the reader’s own interpretation:

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”
Retractations,1:21

You are trying to separate Peter and his faith as two distinct entities. It’s an “either it is Peter or his faith confession” situation for you. We don’t see it that way. We see it as “Peter and his faith confession” and apparently Augustine did also or else he would have said one of them was incorrect and not “…let the reader choose.”. But he did not say that one was incorrect. So it is not an “either. . . or” situation for Augustine.
I am sure that Augustine knew that Peter was not the first Apostle to confess that Jesus was God so why single out his confession? It is clear from Jesus’ own words that Peter received a direct revelation from the Father which the other Apostles did not and Jesus understood this to be a sign of approval to the extent that He changes Simon’s name. The parallel to the OT changing of names is clearly obvious.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are trying to separate Peter and his faith as two distinct entities. It’s an “either it is Peter or his faith confession” situation for you. We don’t see it that way. We see it as “Peter and his faith confession” and apparently Augustine did also or else he would have said one of them was incorrect and not “…let the reader choose.”. But he did not say that one was incorrect. So it is not an “either. . . or” situation for Augustine.

That’s a very strange way of reading the passage. It seems clear that Augustine was proposing two rival, mutually exclusive interpretations.

 

[Duane1966]

Four questions

1 What is the significance of being first among equals? Is it just an honorary title?

2 Why is Simon the only Apoostle that Jesus changes the name? What made him so special?

Will someone please answer these questions?

 

[ezeekl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ezeekl
You are trying to separate Peter and his faith as two distinct entities. It’s an “either it is Peter or his faith confession” situation for you. We don’t see it that way. We see it as “Peter and his faith confession” and apparently Augustine did also or else he would have said one of them was incorrect and not “…let the reader choose.”. But he did not say that one was incorrect. So it is not an “either. . . or” situation for Augustine.

That’s a very strange way of reading the passage. It seems clear that Augustine was proposing two rival, mutually exclusive interpretations.

It is strange only if you are of the mind set that “…Augustine was proposing two rival, mutually exclusive interpretations.” But that is not as clear as you think. Augustine did not rule out either one as incorrect. And what’s with the bit about “let the reader choose”? How theologically dogmatic is that?