Peter NOT "This Rock"???!!!

[steve_b]

jmgainor:

There is implied in your statement an underlying assumption that Christ spoke/taught in Aramaic, and that both petros and petra in Matthew 16.18 were originally Aramaic kepa. Granting for the sake of this discussion that He originally spoke these words in Aramaic (I have seen plausible argument that He may have taught in Hebrew), I would suggest that you look into the probability that, while petros is a correct translation of Aramaic kepa, and is always kepa in Aramaic,* the more correct, and more often, correspondent of petra in Aramaic is shua. ***

This is essential to a more full understanding this passage.

I’ve been to Caeserea Philippi. We had a Jewish guide who spoke all 3 languages, (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic). Your explanation was not mentioned.

1. At Caeserea Philippi there is a massive petra (rock). It was a shrine to the pagan god Pan, who was half goat and half man. Pan was the god of the shepherds. Jesus certainly picked an interesting place to change Simon’s name, and give him the keys to His kingdom, and build His Church on.
2. Jesus renames only Simon to Rock and gives only Peter the keys
3. Cephas, Kepa, Petros, Petra, in context, all describe Peter. Peter is the only one Jesus is talking directly to at this point.
4. Peter’s faith or confession didn’t get the keys to the kingdom of God, Peter did. Peter is the rock in Mt 16:18. Peter is the prime minister, and the one Jesus will build His Church on, which will never end.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Dr. Colossus:

Here are more sources from the early Church Fathers:

Dear Dr Colussus,

Such a profound theologian as the French Dominican Cardinal Yves Congar (is he still alive?) can look all these patristic quotes in the face and still deny papal supremacy and jurisdiction in the early Church - in the very Church of the period from which you are taking your quotes…

Cardinal Congar readily acknowledges that the early Church fathers are not supportive of the teaching of Vatican I and that a consensus of the fathers is nonexistent regarding its dogmas. Not only that, but as far as the Eastern Church is concerned, there was a positive
opposition to the teaching.

“The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. The East jealously protected its autonomous way of life. Rome intervened to safeguard the observation of legal rules, to maintain the orthodoxy of faith and to ensure communion between the two parts of the church, the Roman see representing and personifying the West…In according Rome a “primacy of honour”, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. A modus vivendi was achieved which lasted, albeit with crises, down to the middle of the eleventh century.” Yves Congar, “Diversity and Communion”
Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982, pp. 26-27.

Congar is relating an historical reality here. He is saying that the historical facts reveal that the ecclesiology of the Eastern Church, in its practice, was antithetical to that of Rome. He says: “the East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the
judgment of Western bishops.” Here we have the consensus of practice. In addition he states that from anexegetical standpoint, the East did not interpretthe Petrine passages in conformity with the teachingof Vatican I on papal primacy.

He states:

“Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene.” Yves Congar, “After Nine Hundred Years”
New York: Fordham University, 1959, pp. 61-62.

“It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the
papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical.”

Yves Congar, “Tradition and Traditions”
New York: Macmillan, 1966, p. 398.

Here Congar is explicitly stating that the Eastern Church does not teach papal primacy in their interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. In other, words, in both their practice and their exegesis of Scripture, the
Eastern Church is not in agreement with Roman Catholic ecclesiology of papal primacy. So here we have a patristic consensus of both practice and interpretation which does not support modern Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[Thomas2]

Here’s one of my thoughts on why the re-naming of Simon is such an awesome thing to think about!

God Himself changed Simon from deeper than his DNA at that moment in time!

Even though his human faults lead him to deny Christ, (which BTW had to happen to help Peter know himself better so as to keep his faults in check) and when the Holy Spirit came upon him at Pentecost, the “little bit of yeast” leavened the whole loaf and the rest of that story is in Acts! Even his shadow caused miracles!

BTW - as to the quote below, Jesus asks of us all the assent of the will and some give it before Confirmation some not for years after, with their tales between their legs after a lifetime of sin and shame and some are graced with it from birth. If you don’t understand why we Catholics do what we do, then don’t judge. Learn it from us and then make an accurate assesment of what we do. There are deeper meanings to all that we do that mere argument won’t clarify. Faith is the door through which the assent of the will can be made for Doubting Thomases, (like me) who lack enough trust in the institutional church to do what THEY do without question. But I can assure you that understanding comes after the leap of faith that that type of conversion process takes. Grace in abundance!

**“The RCC demands submission of intellect and will regardless of faith” **

I sometimes wish our Church could be a little more demanding! Some of our wayward sons and daughters need quite a bit of reining in.

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[jmgainor]

steve b:

I’ve been to Caeserea Philippi. We had a Jewish guide who spoke all 3 languages, (Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic). Your explanation was not mentioned.

1. At Caeserea Philippi there is a massive petra (rock). It was a shrine to the pagan god Pan, who was half goat and half man. Pan was the god of the shepherds. Jesus certainly picked an interesting place to change Simon’s name, and give him the keys to His kingdom, and build His Church on.
2. Jesus renames only Simon to Rock and gives only Peter the keys
3. Cephas, Kepa, Petros, Petra, in context, all describe Peter. Peter is the only one Jesus is talking directly to at this point.
4. Peter’s faith or confession didn’t get the keys to the kingdom of God, Peter did. Peter is the rock in Mt 16:18. Peter is the prime minister, and the one Jesus will build His Church on, which will never end.

Steve, the proof is contained in the links I posted. Some people are content to believe whatever they are told to believe; and some must take the time to seek and search out the truth to its roots. I happen to be one of the latter. If you can offer a response to the material in the links, please do (you haven’t). Otherwise, believe and think as you wish.

Here are three more links I have compiled with a more in-depth look at Matthew 16.18 in the effort to get the correct understanding of it:

Matthew 16.18 a look at how the early Church viewed this passage.
Upon This Rock a look at the Scriptural interpretation of this passage.
Hebrew of Matthew a look at the claim that petros = petra on the presumption that an original Hebrew or Aramaic used the same word in both places.

You will learn something from reading these, if you wish to.

P.S. The original two links in my first post are contained in the Hebrew of Matthew link above.

 

[Thomas2]

Just another thought…

The Church’s tradition of re-naming persons continues in our days as well and even in some orders your name is selected for you and not known until a certain time. This has to with the discernment of the spirit of the person being named etc…and its meanings go deep.

But without the assent of the will how can the Holy Spirit explain this stuff to a person from the “inside out?” Mere argumentation doesn’t cut it.

Jesus said “I AM” and to Simon He said “you are Cephas…!!!” Think about it. Is it all that hard to accept that God can do whatever He wants? Omnipotent. Hmmmmm…

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[Thomas2]

P.S. It is reeeeeeeaaallly hard to try to sound smart while being stupid for very long. I know - I tired and I finally got sick and tired of beating my head against that wall. :banghead:

I gave up and tried it God’s way for a change. Get it over with and have good cry ------ just like Peter BTW!

You’ll feel better in the morning, I Gar-Ron-Teeee!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

 

[ricatholic]

Thomas2:

Just another thought…

The Church’s tradition of re-naming persons continues in our days as well and even in some orders your name is selected for you and not known until a certain time. This has to with the discernment of the spirit of the person being named etc…and its meanings go deep.

But without the assent of the will how can the Holy Spirit explain this stuff to a person from the “inside out?” Mere argumentation doesn’t cut it.

Jesus said “I AM” and to Simon He said “you are Cephas…!!!” Think about it. Is it all that hard to accept that God can do whatever He wants? Omnipotent. Hmmmmm…

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

So Jesus calls Simon, Peter or Rock or whatever.

How does that translate into all the other stuff about popes being infallible etc. etc.

Keep in mind all the other things Jesus taught about the least being like Him etc.etc.

Also remember that at the least a few verses later in the 16:20’s Jesus was calling Peter, Satan. Also remember how Jesus responded to Satan in the temptation in Matt.

Peace

 

[jmgainor]

Ambrose,

I saw your post and, as I have done quite a bit of study on the question of claims of papal primacy, I thought I would offer some (name removed by moderator)ut.

I am familiar with the growth and development of the claims of papal primacy in the patristic writings, and how they over time superseded, in the eyes of their adherents, the earlier structure of the Church government which was established in the five principal sees, etc.

However, the question that must be addressed is, are those papal claims of apostolic origin? For, if they have no solid roots in the apostolic age, they are invalid, being but man’s interpolation into the divine plan.

Of course, the papal primacy claims all have their foundation on the presumption that Peter is the rock on which Christ is building His Church. That requires a particular interpretation of Matthew 16.18 to be correct. However there is at least one other interpretation that is more compelling by both historical and Scriptural exegesis. And that is that Christ is the Rock of Matthew 16.18.

The Scriptural exegesis that would claim Peter as that rock hopelessly fails, as Christ is in many places shown in the Scriptures to be the Rock Foundation and Cornerstone of the Church. Here is a look at them, though you are likely familiar with them already.

Thus, the only redemption for the Petrine primacy interpretation would be if it were solidly rooted in the apostolic or immediate post-apostolic age. Then it could be said to be of apostolic origin. However, here again it utterly fails.

The first mention in the patristic writings of the Church built upon a rock is found in the Shepherd of Hermas, in the middle of the second century. And the rock is beyond any question Christ Himself. This is brought out here with quotes and links to the context of the passage (scroll a short way to the “Pastor of Hermas”). Tertullian was the first to make a Peter = rock correlation in the early third century. However Tertullian certainly held no view of either Petrine or papal primacy, as is further demonstrated on the same page above. Tertullian likely picked up this interpretation at Rome, with whom he was conversant, and where he likely was educated.

To try to elicit support for papal claims from Clement’s letter is but ethereal, and not any solid foundation.

So, the Petrine/papal claims completely fail to produce roots in either the Scriptures or the apostolic age. Thus, they are invalid, and foreign to the Gospel and the Church, the Bride.

 

[steve_b]

jmgainor:

Steve, the proof is contained in the links I posted. If you can offer a response to the material in the links, please do (you haven’t). Otherwise, believe and think as you wish.

Here are three more links I have compiled with a more in-depth look at Matthew 16.18 in the effort to get the correct understanding of it:

Matthew 16.18 a look at how the early Church viewed this passage.
Upon This Rock a look at the Scriptural interpretation of this passage.
Hebrew of Matthew a look at the claim that petros = petra on the presumption that an original Hebrew or Aramaic used the same word in both places.

You will learn something from reading these, if you wish to.

Reality is, Peter alone got the keys, he is called Rock by Jesus. And Peter was given the commission to feed and rule the Church by Jesus. Nothing more needs to be said

Bottomline, this is really about obedience to authority that comes by faith in Christ. No obedience, no faith. Know obedience, know faith in Christ

The first time Paul mentions faith to the Romans, he talks about their obedience that comes by faith. And he is praising the Church of Rome for their obedience, therefore their faith, which he says is heard of around the world. Paul says he longs to visit the Church of Rome to be encouraged by their faith. [Rm 1:5-12…] Pauls parting comment to the Romans and the last time he mentions faith, it is the obedience to faith again that he is complementing the Romans on. And he says to avoid those who are divisive. In otherwords, divisiveness is equated with disobedience to the faith given by the apostles. [Rm 16:17…] As Paul warns later in Galatians, those who cause discensions factions and divisions are acting out on their sinful nature, and if they continue, they will not inherit the kingdom of heaven.[Gal 5:19…]

Lets look at just the first quote from your link. Were you aware that when Tertullian wrote this, approx 211, he was a montanist? Look it up. Tertullian at this time in his life was a full blown heretic. But let’s look at what he says anyway.

Tertullian

***"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” ***

---

Weren’t you arguing one post earlier, links included, for Jesus being the rock, not Peter and that Peter’s confession, not Peter, is what the Church is built on? Tertullian got this one right

**Prescription Against Heretics, **Chapter XXII

---

…" For though you think heaven still shut, remember that the Lord left here to Peter and through him to the Church, the keys of it, which every one who has been here put to the question, and also made confession, will carry with him"

---

After the year 200, Tertullian’s commentary is of limited usefulness because he was a montanist. Some of his stuff he got right, but there is much that isn’t right once he became a montanist. This last statement of everyone carrying the keys is not correct

As an aside, the Church has always said that the keys come through Peter, and those [bishops] who are in union with him.

 

[Myhrr]

Thomas2:

Hey there guys n gals! Here in Philly he ain’t just the Rock - he’s ROCKY!

Peace and all good,

Thomas2

Is this where that came from…?
Augustine, Sermon 229. “In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”

 

[Myhrr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by RBushlow
Remember when this is happening. etc.

My reply: It was some time before the Ascension. The explanation of the Passion came next, then the Transfiguration and Jesus continued travelling around teaching before the Crucifixion, Resurrection and his return to teach for some time before the Ascension. I don’t think it likely that Peter made that association then, or later. The Mother of God was the focal point of the early Christians after Jesus’ Ascension. There’s also a story in tradition that after her death she returned to the disciples and told them she’d always be with them. I’ll have a look for it.

Re the above post 1st August, the story I recalled is from unicorne.org/orthodoxy/articles/articles_a/virginmary.htm

"As with pictures of our own mothers who gave us birth, so too we honour images of our spiritual Mother who has a direct relationship to the Body of Christ that is the Church.
The Akathist to the Dormition relates how the Apostles had gathered for supper and, as became their tradition, left a place at table for Christ and now for His Mother.

As they were blessing the special loaf of bread in honour of the Virgin Mary, she appeared above them, greeting them with words from her Son. She told them that all that ask for her help will receive it. The words of this apparition were soon framed in the Church’s familiar prayer said daily at Compline: Save, protect and help us, O Virgin Theotokos!"

 

[Myhrr]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Charbrah
Hi Steve, thanks for the Canon information. I want to know why Myrhh thinks that the RCC forged a lot of the documentation and when the RCC admitted to the forgeries.

Myhrr:

The history of the forgeries is too well known for RCC historians not to admit to them and I do recall several references to this, however, the subject is generally simply ignored by the RCC and its apologists. I did read somewhere that the RCC still uses something that it admitted was a forgery, but I can’t recall what that was, I’ll have a look for it.

There’s some background information on this page:

[ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-114.htm#P8768_2861113](http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-08/anf08-114.htm#P8768_2861113)

]

The reference I recalled but which I don’t know anything more about and haven’t checked into further is that the well known Pseudo-Isidorean decretals forgeries still appear the Codex Iuris Canonici. They make it look like papal claims were time honored and the will of God.
source = Hans Kung, The Catholic Church.
*

 

[jmgainor]

steve b:

Reality is, Peter alone got the keys, he is called Rock by Jesus. And Peter was given the commission to feed and rule the Church by Jesus. Nothing more needs to be said

No Steve, reality is that, while you might wish nothing more might be said, there is much more to be said. The keys are the power to bind and loose, which was given to all the Church, and not to Peter alone. e.g. Matthew 18.18-20, etc.
steve b:

After the year 200, Tertullian’s commentary is of limited usefulness because he was a montanist. …

As an aside, the Church has always said that the keys come through Peter, and those [bishops] who are in union with him.

No Steve, Rome’s claim that Tertullian became heretical is only their way of dismissing those of his writings which are unfavorable to them. That the keys belonged to the entire Church and not to Peter alone (and, as you would claim, his successors), was the view of the entire Church, and not peculiar to Tertullian. Further, Tertullian’s view that Peter was the rock of Mt.16.18 was a novelty in his day.

The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed nay sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. … when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "
5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. … The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.… Cyprian, Treatise I, on the Unity of the Church, ¶¶ 4-5

That unity is in Christ, Who is the Head of His Church, and in the Holy Spirit, and not in some man. See John 17, etc.

20 ¶ Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest to me I have given to them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me

How can one read these words of the Lord, and think that Christian unity is to be found in a man???!!!

Other quotes could be produced regarding both the keys and regarding the unity of the Church; but these few will suffice for now, for the sake of brevity.

 

[jmgainor]

Hi Steve, thanks for the Canon information. I want to know why Myrhh thinks that the RCC forged a lot of the documentation and when the RCC admitted to the forgeries.

If I can interject a post into your discussion, here is some material on the many forgeries which helped to establish the papacy.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

It continues to amaze me why non catholics think anything they say is right when it comes to discerning whether Catholicism is correct or no.

Fact, either God has ensured Catholcism is exactly correct in its teachings or he has not.

Fact either God has ensured any other religeon, branch of Christianity etc is axactly correct in its teachings or he has not.

If in either case God has not ENSURED correct teaching by one organisatioin or another then it is IMPOSSIBLE to know what is truth and what is not truth because all groups claim that on various important points or another that other groups are wrong.

Either catholicism is right or Christianity is a lot more subjective, THUS unknown than any one has any idea about. What follows is that no one knows where Christianity starts and where it ends, or in fact the truthfullness and relevence of any points along the way.

Non catholics can’t have it both ways, if their (non catholic)way is correct they must show demonstrably why their way is correct and we all know that no one can do that to the satisfaction of another otherwise we would not be in this whole Christian type mess.

All you non catholics should get a grip of reality and accept that you have a faith based on your likes, dislikes and fears alone, becasue you can’t use reason and logic one little bit to test the validity of your beliefs.

 

[steve_b]

jmgainor:
The keys are given to all the Church, and not to Peter alone. Matthew 18.18-20,

keys aren’t mentioned in Mt 18:18-20.

jmgainor:
Tertullian’s view that Peter was the rock of Mt.16.18 was a novelty in his day.

It seems you want it both ways.

jmgainor:
The Lord speaks to Peter, .[snip] for space

Cyprian, Treatise I, on the Unity of the Church,

Re: Unity,

**[There are two editions, the second of which tones down the first in view of Cyprian’s argument with Pope Stephen over rebaptizing heretics. Papal primacy is clear in the first edition written about 251 A.D., but merely implicit **in the second effort written about 255 or 256 A.D.]

**First Edition: “And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). 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 our 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 his is in the Church?”

Second Edition: ***"It is on the one man that He builds the Church; *and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, 'As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man’s sins, they shall be retained" (John 20: 21-23) Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. [snip] for space

Unity with Peter!

jmgainor:
John 17:20-23.

---

How can one read these words of the Lord, and think that Christian unity is to be found in a man???!!!

Isn’t that what Cyprian said [that you specifically quoted] ???

 

[Myhrr]

**Steve b

**In your posts, around the 140 mark, you quote a lot about the councils, please bear in mind that the councils were not talking about Spiritual Authority, they were talking about administrative authority - jurisdictions are simply that. Each patriarchate has an area it oversees administratively. Because each bishop is equal the bishop agreed on by the others to be the ‘first among equals’ has the chair in councils and such, that’s it, it’s no more complex than that. The bishop elected by the others to be first among equals is not superior either spiritually or administratively over the other bishops. One jurisdictionally area could not interfere in the running of another.

At the first council of Nicaea Rome ***was given, by the others, ***an area which would be its own to admininister.

So please, let’s have done with this particular argument. Rome is simply one patriarchate that went on an ego trip.
steve b:

continued

**Cyril of Jerusalem
**
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 A.D. 350]).So, I ask again, what has that to do with Rome? And please don’t continue confusing this with adminstrative areas, why does Rome think this refers to it? Was Cyril of Jerusalem talking about Rome? What’s the context?

**

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa **A.D. 367]).**Optatus is arguing with the Donatists and being sarcastic, saying ‘we can trace the lineage of our chair, what’s yours?’

This is not an argument about the supremacy of Rome over the other apostolic chairs. Please remember that all the early fathers recognised that Rome was established by two Apostles - Peter and Paul. Why don’t you claim the chair of Paul?

Optatus was a student of Augustine who said in the same argument against the Donatists:

“For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.” Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists II, 2.

**

continued
**

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to** Steve b**

---

Ambrose of Milan

**
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 A.D. 379]).What’s the context? Is this about the Bishop of Rome having supremacy over every other bishop?

**

Augustine

**
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 A.D. 411]).

Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 A.D. 416]).

Should I continue?I think you should continue studying.

How far have we got? You can’t use Cyprian of Carthage anymore so let’s add another to that list, let’s eliminate Augustine.

Remember his quote above?

“For no one of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or, by tyrannical terror, forces his colleagues to a necessity of obeying, inasmuch as every bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another.” Augustine, On Baptism, Against the Donatists II, 2.

Add to it these:

Augustine, The Retractations 20:1. “In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.” Augustine, Sermon 229. “In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.”
continued**

 

[Myhrr]

Continued to Steve b

Augustine, sermon 26:1-4. “For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.
For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church.”
Augustine, Commentary on John, 124:5. “And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church.”

And what then is the Church?

Here’s the priesthood:

1 Peter 2:9
But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;
http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin...yes&KJV_version=yes&language=english&x=11&y=5

 

[Charbrah]

I was watching EWTN on saturday, and Dr. Scott Hahn was talking about the Gospel of Matthew. He said that agreement has been reached among biblical scholars, Catholic and Protestant, that Christ was referring to Peter upon whom he would build His Church, and Peter’s confession cannot be separated from Peter. Dr. Hahn said that any such efforts to separate Peter’s confession from Peter is just anti-catholic bigotry. Myhrr, you seem to be trying to separate Peter’s confession from Peter. I think you might be confused with what Christ was doing when He established His Church. Christ was not establishing a democracy within His Church, He was establishing a monarchy with Himself as the King and Peter as His Prime Minister. Let us go back to the keys. The keys represent the granting of royal authority into the hands of one man, Peter. Christ is the invisible head of the invisible Church, yet Christ established a visible head of the visible Church in the person of Peter, and that office that Christ established of Prime Minister is successive, just as the Davidic office of Prime Minister was successive. The line of succession goes back from John Paul II all the way to St. Peter, and John Paul II is the visible head of the visible Church, while Christ is the invisible head of the invisible Church. The Pope has authority over the Church because of the authority given to him from Christ.