Petra and Petros...?

[joe370]

I just wanted to preface post #1 by saying:

All Christians belonging to the Catholic Church, believe that Jesus is of course the Divine Rock/Cornerstone on which His church is built.

I was thinking about the different interpretations of sola scriptura among sola scriptura proponents which got me thinking about something else:

Of all the non-Catholics here, (at least those who respond to the thread) - how many believe (or don’t believe) - that the words Petros and Petra are, respectively, the masculine and feminine of the same word rock, as opposed to being 2 different words with 2 different meanings, those being small rock contrasted with big rock?

Also, how many believe that the second rock is, grammatically speaking, referring to the first rock, that being Simon, renamed rock?

The consensus among protestant scholars seems to reflect what the Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel has to say about it:

*“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text suggests a material identity between Petra and Petros as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. Only the fairly assured Aramaic original enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between Petra and Petros, Pertra equals Kefa which equals Petros. Petros himself is this Petra, not just his faith or his confession. The idea of the reformers that He was referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable, for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter, rather the parallelism of that are rock and upon this rock I will build shows the second rock can only be referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name rock. To this extent Roman Catholic Exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” *

Please feel free to quote other protestant scholars who agree with Gerhard Kittel or disagree? I would enjoy reading what either have to say!

Thanks…

 

[Cavaradossi]

There are multiple interpretations of that verse. One, given by St. Augustine in his Retractationes, is that the rock is Christ. Other Church Fathers have interpreted it to mean that Peter is the rock (I believe St. John Chrysostom held this view) or Peter’s faith is the rock. Personally, I think all of these interpretations are valid ways of reading the text, and that it’s probably rather foolish to say that there is only one correct reading and dismiss all other interpretations (In fact, St. Augustine was aware that others interpreted that passage differently, and he himself took the position that it didn’t really matter).

 

[joe370]

There are multiple interpretations of that verse. One, given by St. Augustine in his Retractationes, is that the rock is Christ.

Of course. Which is why I said, in post #1:

“All Christians belonging to the Catholic Church, believe that Jesus is of course the Divine Rock/Cornerstone on which His church is built.”

Other Church Fathers have interpreted it to mean that Peter is the rock (I believe St. John Chrysostom held this view) or Peter’s faith is the rock. Personally, I think all of these interpretations are valid ways of reading the text, and that it’s probably rather foolish to say that there is only one correct reading and dismiss all other interpretations (In fact, St. Augustine was aware that others interpreted that passage differently, and he himself took the position that it didn’t really matter).

 

[JonNC]

There are multiple interpretations of that verse. One, given by St. Augustine in his Retractationes, is that the rock is Christ. Other Church Fathers have interpreted it to mean that Peter is the rock (I believe St. John Chrysostom held this view) or Peter’s faith is the rock. Personally, I think all of these interpretations are valid ways of reading the text, and that it’s probably rather foolish to say that there is only one correct reading and dismiss all other interpretations (In fact, St. Augustine was aware that others interpreted that passage differently, and he himself took the position that it didn’t really matter).

I agree with this. While my Tradition emphasizes the rock as St. Peter’s confession of faith, ISTM to be theological gymnastics to state that rock doesn’t, at least in some ways, refer to St. Peter the apostle himself.
That said, however, to the extent that Peter is rock, it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the papacy has the authority and universal jurisdiction that it claims for itself.

Jon

 

[Marybeloved]

I’ve read that the fathers took an all/and approach with this issue as with many others- St. Peter himself, his confession of faith, all are the foundation upon which the Church is built.

But anyone who denies that St. Peter is himself the Rock must really force himself to deny what the text says. His name in Aramaic is Kepha which is properly translated into Greek for a man as Petros, rather than Petra (female) though both are kepha in Aramaic- But we know that our Lord did not speak any Greek. So what he said in Aramaic was “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church…” And then he proceeds to give him keys to the kingdom and power to bind and loose- It’s really unnatural to separate this last part from the first as if they happened separately. Obviously something pretty out of the ordinary happened to Peter himself in connection with his confession of the Christ, whether you believe in the papacy or not.

 

[joe370]

I agree with this. While my Tradition emphasizes the rock as St. Peter’s confession of faith, ISTM to be theological gymnastics to state that rock doesn’t, at least in some ways, refer to St. Peter the apostle himself.
That said, however, to the extent that Peter is rock, it doesn’t lead to the conclusion that the papacy has the authority and universal jurisdiction that it claims for itself.

Jon

The majority of the ECF’s claim that the church was/is built on Peter but some definitely interpret it both ways. It doesn’t appear that any ECF denies it…

Regarding Peter’s confession, even the CC says:

CCC 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.”

Jon, do you believe it was Jesus’ intent or design, if you will, for His church leadership, upon His departure, to possess universal authority in Christendom, of course guided by the Holy Spirit?

What was your response to the 2 questions in post #1?

 

[joe370]

I’ve read that the fathers took an all/and approach with this issue as with many others- St. Peter himself, his confession of faith, all are the foundation upon which the Church is built.

But anyone who denies that St. Peter is himself the Rock must really force himself to deny what the text says. His name in Aramaic is Kepha which is properly translated into Greek for a man as Petros, rather than Petra (female) though both are kepha in Aramaic- But we know that our Lord did not speak any Greek. So what he said in Aramaic was “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church…” And then he proceeds to give him keys to the kingdom and power to bind and loose- It’s really unnatural to separate this last part from the first as if they happened separately. Obviously something pretty out of the ordinary happened to Peter himself in connection with his confession of the Christ, whether you believe in the papacy or not.

It’s also unnatural to claim that the keys to the kingdom were given to the other apostles or to all Christians, as espoused by some. Nowhere does tradition or scripture claim that the the keys to the kingdom were given to the other apostles.

Thanks for the feedback vis-a-vis Petra and Petros.

You know Mary, it really is just that simple.

 

[JonNC]

The majority of the ECF’s claim that the church was/is built on Peter but some definitely interpret it both ways. It doesn’t appear that any ECF denies it…

Regarding Peter’s confession, even the CC says:

CCC 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.”

Jon, do you believe it was Jesus’ intent or design, if you will, for His church leadership, upon His departure, to possess universal authority in Christendom, of course guided by the Holy Spirit?

I have no problem with this. I just don’t see, nor do I think the early Church saw a universal authority in the bishop of one see, at least not how it is viewed today.

What was your response to the 2 questions in post #1?

Know what, Joe? I’ll cede this part of the debate to those more knowledgeable than me on the matter of the linguistics.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8515411]I have no problem with this. I just don’t see, nor do I think the early Church saw a universal authority in the bishop of one see, at least not how it is viewed today.

OK. But do you believe it was at least Jesus’ intent or design for His church leadership, upon His departure, to possess universal authority in Christendom, of course guided by the Holy Spirit?

Know what, Joe? I’ll cede this part of the debate to those more knowledgeable than me on the matter of the linguistics.

OK…

Quick scenario:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast.

Boat #2 is logically and grammatically, referring to boat #1 - correct? If so then wouldn’t the same logic and grammer apply to:

You are rock and on this rock I will build my church.

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;8515452]OK. But do you believe it was at least Jesus’ intent or design for His church leadership, upon His departure, to possess universal authority in Christendom, of course guided by the Holy Spirit?

Like I said, Joe, I have no problem with this, with the caveat I mentioned.

OK…

Quick scenario:

This is my boat and on this boat I will build my mast.

Boat #2 is logically and grammatically, referring to boat #1 - correct? If so then wouldn’t the same logic and grammer apply to:

You are rock and on this rock I will build my church

Without Peter’s confession of faith, Peter is " you will deny me three times", and “get behind me, Satan”, etc. If, in fact, Peter is the Rock as the CC describes him, then it is only because of the confession of faith. Therefore, does Christ claim he will build His Church on this man alone? Or this man who is defined in that moment by nothing more than his statement of faith? Which is more important to the Church, Peter the man?
Or, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”?
I love St. Peter, but I believe the latter is far more important.

Jon

 

[joe370]

JonNC;8515512]Like I said, Joe, I have no problem with this, with the caveat I mentioned.

If, in fact, Peter is the Rock as the CC describes him, then it is only because of the confession of faith.

Agreed. "Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Therefore, does Christ claim he will build His Church on this man alone?

Well, Jesus did say to Simon alone: "And I tell you that you are Kepha) Peter, and on this (kepha) - rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

But scripture also says:

“Built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone.”

This lends itself nicely to the fact that Jesus’ church is built on people as opposed to confessions, don’t you think?

Or this man who is defined in that moment by nothing more than his statement of faith?

Christ never claims that he will build His Church on Peter who is defined in that moment by nothing more than his statement of faith - right?

I agree that Simon is defined in that moment, by his statement of faith, that Jesus is the Messiah. He is defined as Kepha on which Jesus will build His church, against which the gates of hell will never prevail. Unless I am missing something?

Which is more important to the Church, Peter the man?
Or, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”?
I love St. Peter, but I believe the latter is far more important.

Peter the man, or his confession that Jesus is the Messiah? I think the key is the fact that Jesus’ church is built on Rock, as opposed to the man Simon, re-named Rock. Peter would one day die but the Rock (Petrine office) - on which Jesus’ church is built, no matter how much the gates of hell beat against it, will never fall because His church has its foundation on Rock (kepha). It appears to be a play on words used by Jesus in other places in scripture:

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.”

Let’s break it down:

Because the Father in heaven revealed to Peter that His Son Jesus was in fact the long awaited Messiah, the Son of the living God, Jesus says, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

The Father’s revelation to peter leading to his confession about who Jesus really is, leads to a defining moment (a name change for Simon) - and the following declaration by Jesus regarding His church and the fact that even the gates of hell will never vanquish His church because His church is built on Rock.

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Perhaps it’s not completely an either/or situation. Simon saying, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” - was the critical stepping stone that led to Jesus saying:

"And I tell you that you are Peter, (rock) - and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

For me the big question was:

Why won’t the gates of Hades overcome Jesus’ church?

Logically, it’s because Jesus’ church is built on kepha (meaning a massive, immovable rock) - of course thanks to Simon saying, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Maybe…

 

[Marybeloved]

Without Peter’s confession of faith, Peter is " you will deny me three times", and “get behind me, Satan”, etc. If, in fact, Peter is the Rock as the CC describes him, then it is only because of the confession of faith. Therefore, does Christ claim he will build His Church on this man alone?Or this man who is defined in that moment by nothing more than his statement of faith?

With all due respect, Jon, you make it sound like the confession was just one ordinary thing that any could make, only it just happened to be Simon bar Jonah this time, but the scenario is not presented quite like that, is it? St. Peter makes his confession and our Lord declares that in fact it is not his (Peter’s) confession but God the Father’s!- Why should we begrudge God’s own choices? It’s like begrudging God’s choice of Mary, saying Oh, she’s nothing special, just happened to say Yes in that one moment- So is she really alone the Mother of God?

But, immediately Peter utters the divinely revealed confession (the sign of his election by God the Father testified by Christ) Jesus names him Rock and declares that he shall build his church upon this Rock…and that’s supposed to mean “everyone”? How many people did God name Rock? In fact I remember reading that before St. Peter, people weren’t named Rock. In Judaism that was God’s designation, no-one else’s

Which is more important to the Church, Peter the man? Or, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”?

That’s like asking, which is more important?- Mary, the woman or her “Be it to me as you say”? Of course both are important- Both are God’s choice !

I love St. Peter, but I believe the latter is far more important.

How about God the Father’s choice of revelation to St. Peter alone- Is that not as important? St. Peter wasn’t just lucky in his answer, you know. He was chosen- why should we try to diminish God’s own election? Doesn’t he know better?

Peace!

 

[Gara3987]

I just wanted to preface post #1 by saying:

All Christians belonging to the Catholic Church, believe that Jesus is of course the Divine Rock/Cornerstone on which His church is built.

I was thinking about the different interpretations of sola scriptura among sola scriptura proponents which got me thinking about something else:

Of all the non-Catholics here, (at least those who respond to the thread) - how many believe (or don’t believe) - that the words Petros and Petra are, respectively, the masculine and feminine of the same word rock, as opposed to being 2 different words with 2 different meanings, those being small rock contrasted with big rock?

Also, how many believe that the second rock is, grammatically speaking, referring to the first rock, that being Simon, renamed rock?

The consensus among protestant scholars seems to reflect what the Greek scholar Gerhard Kittel has to say about it:

*“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text suggests a material identity between Petra and Petros as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. Only the fairly assured Aramaic original enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between Petra and Petros, Pertra equals Kefa which equals Petros. Petros himself is this Petra, not just his faith or his confession. The idea of the reformers that He was referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable, for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter, rather the parallelism of that are rock and upon this rock I will build shows the second rock can only be referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name rock. To this extent Roman Catholic Exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” *

Please feel free to quote other protestant scholars who agree with Gerhard Kittel or disagree? I would enjoy reading what either have to say!

Thanks…

From what I have researched, Biblical Greek is Koine Greek. In Koine Greek Petros was never used as it was not a word. Petra was the only word, but it is a feminine word so they changed the suffix of Petra and made it masculine by using “os” (ος) instead of “a” (α). Kind of like Latin, all words that end in “a” or “æ” are feminine with the exception of Profession. While “r” & “us” are usually Masculine, and “um” is neuter.

In reality, the whole Petra / Petros thing really becomes irrelevant do to the fact the Our Lord Spoke Aramaic-Syriac. In Joan. i. 42 Christ said:

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.”

Within the Greek, Κηφᾶς (Cephas) is a transliteration of the Aramaic-Syriac word ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ (Keefo). The Greek translation of the word Keefo would be Petros/Petra which in English is Peter and means rock.

However, the real and perfect translation of “Keefo” is Stone. The exact translation of Rock is “Shuho” (ܫܽܘܥܳܐ). In the same time if you search in the Aramaic for the deeper meaning of “Shuho” it gives you again the word “Keefo”. There is no real difference between them. In the old Aramaic version of the gospel readings you see that the word Keefo is used with the meaning of Shuho. Confer the Antiochian Syriac Liturgy.

From there Christ told Keefo (or Peter):

And I say to thee: That thou art a rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Take Care

Maius pax Christi semper esse tecum.

 

[joe370]

With all due respect, Jon, you make it sound like the confession was just one ordinary thing that any could make, only it just happened to be Simon bar Jonah this time, but the scenario is not presented quite like that, is it? St. Peter makes his confession and our Lord declares that in fact it is not his (Peter’s) confession but God the Father’s!- Why should we begrudge God’s own choices? It’s like begrudging God’s choice of Mary, saying Oh, she’s nothing special, just happened to say Yes in that one moment- So is she really alone the Mother of God?

But, immediately Peter utters the divinely revealed confession (the sign of his election by God the Father testified by Christ) Jesus names him Rock and declares that he shall build his church upon this Rock…and that’s supposed to mean “everyone”? How many people did God name Rock? In fact I remember reading that before St. Peter, people weren’t named Rock. In Judaism that was God’s designation, no-one else’s
That’s like asking, which is more important?- Mary, the woman or her “Be it to me as you say”? Of course both are important- Both are God’s choice !
How about God the Father’s choice of revelation to St. Peter alone- Is that not as important? St. Peter wasn’t just lucky in his answer, you know. He was chosen- why should we try to diminish God’s own election? Doesn’t he know better?

Peace!

You are right. Other than the one time Abraham is referred to as a “rock” (Tsur in Hebrew) - only God is referred to as a rock and it was never used as a proper name and it certainly didn’t deny or take away from the obvious fact that God is the One invisible divine Rock.

“Look to the rock from which you were cut and to the quarry from which you were hewn; look to Abraham, your father…” Isaiah 51

It seems that Peter’s unique role among the apostles was broached even at the very beginning of his relationship with Jesus. The very first time Jesus meets Simon, Jesus says to him,“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas.”

The big question is why the name change? Perhaps, because it was to illustrate that the status of Simon had changed due to the fact that the Father had revealed the following to Simon: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” We see the same thing in the OT: Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, Jacob’s to Israel, Eliakim’s to Joakim, etc…

I think it’s rather compelling that Jesus told Simon that what he had professed was in fact specially revealed to him, which was the very reason why Jesus, at that instance, changed his name to rock, and went on to say: “and on this (kepha) - rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”

Another compelling question:

Why can’t the gates of hell overcome Jesus’ church according to Matthew? Is it because Simon said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God” or is it because Jesus built His church on solid rock? The latter seems much more plausible.

One thing that is very clear is the grammatical perspective. The phrase “this rock” absolutely must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith (“You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”) is clearly 2 verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, immediately precedes it.

Analogy:

“I have a car and a truck, and it is blue.” Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun “it.” This becomes even mor obvious if the reference to the car is 2 sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is 2 sentences earlier than the word rock. Jesus of course is the invisible foundation of the Church but Peter is named by him as the secondary foundation because he and his successors alone, via the keys, represent the visible foundation of Jesus’ church. If the church is visible then it’s foundation must be visible and Peter can be the visible foundation only because Jesus is the divine Rock and Cornerstone. I was rather surprised, as a former protestant, to find out that nowhere does tradition or scripture claim that the keys were given to anyone other than Simon who would logically pass those keys on to a successor, if the church is to continue to be built on Rock.

Regarding post #1, people have insisted that in the Greek text the name of Simon is Petros (small stone) - as opposed to (petra) immovable rock.

The obvious question is:

I get why Abram’s name was changed to Abraham, but what would be the significance of changing Simon’s name to a word that means small stone?

What does make sense is why Jesus would give Simon the name, immovable rock. He did so because Jesus’ plan was:

No matter how hard the satanic winds blow and beat against His church, it will never fall because it has its foundation on solid Rock.

 

[joe370]

From what I have researched, Biblical Greek is Koine Greek. In Koine Greek Petros was never used as it was not a word. Petra was the only word, but it is a feminine word so they changed the suffix of Petra and made it masculine by using “os” (ος) instead of “a” (α). Kind of like Latin, all words that end in “a” or “æ” are feminine with the exception of Profession. While “r” & “us” are usually Masculine, and “um” is neuter.

In reality, the whole Petra / Petros thing really becomes irrelevant do to the fact the Our Lord Spoke Aramaic-Syriac. In Joan. i. 42 Christ said:

“Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.”

Within the Greek, Κηφᾶς (Cephas) is a transliteration of the Aramaic-Syriac word ܟ݁ܺܐܦ݂ܳܐ (Keefo). The Greek translation of the word Keefo would be Petros/Petra which in English is Peter and means rock.

However, the real and perfect translation of “Keefo” is Stone. The exact translation of Rock is “Shuho” (ܫܽܘܥܳܐ). In the same time if you search in the Aramaic for the deeper meaning of “Shuho” it gives you again the word “Keefo”. There is no real difference between them. In the old Aramaic version of the gospel readings you see that the word Keefo is used with the meaning of Shuho. Confer the Antiochian Syriac Liturgy.

From there Christ told Keefo (or Peter):

And I say to thee: That thou art a rock; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Take Care

Maius pax Christi semper esse tecum.

 

[Marybeloved]

And I just wanted to add something more. Let’s look at the whole scene in St Mathew’s Gospel (16:13-19):

Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Phillipi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do men say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’"

To me the matter is so clear-

"Blessed are you…" Where else do we remember meeting those very words in the Gospels?- Blessed are you? Isn’t this the praise given over an immense favor of God that has been granted to some specific individual? And Christ says, Blessed are you Simon! So this is not just some General blessing but a favor that is connected specially with the person of Simon bar Jonah and that cannot legitimately be separated from him.

Our Lord goes further- “For flesh and Blood did not reveal this to you but my Father…” Isn’t it clear? Simon is not Blessed simply because he has confessed Christ, as many assume, something the rest could have done presumably and must have done at some point- He’s blessed because God the Father has chosen to reveal this to him!** And chosen to do so at this specific time when Christ has asked the question “Who am I” to all his disciples!** Why would that be so special unless it indicated a choice of Simon? It seems obvious to me that an election has just occurred and that a highly special favor has just been conferred on this simple fisherman- a favor that Our Lord immediately recognizes and rejoices over!

Immediately he goes on to say, "And You are Peter, and On this Rock, I will build my Church…And I will give you the Keys…Whatever you bind or loose…" To me it seems so obvious that Peter is set apart after God the Father gives him the Revelation and he confesses it to Christ- Suddenly, his own Lord is rejoicing over him and he’s no longer just Simon but Rock and he receives Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and power to bind and loose, and is made aware that Christ’s future Church (That Kingdom to which Peter has just been promised the Keys) is to be built on him!- It seems quite clear to me that a special office in Christ’s future Church and Kingdom of Heaven has just been created by Christ according to his Father’s Holy will, and it is rooted firmly in/on this Simon-Peter.

Anyway, people are free to interpret the scriptures as they will, but this is just one of those that to me is quite plain in its implications- But I guess to each his own, eh?

Peace!

 

[JohnVIII]

May I present a theory? Is it possible that the feminine Rock refers to the See of St Peter? Peter was the first to occupy that See, others later, but the See itself (feminine) remains a constant.

 

[joe370]

May I present a theory? Is it possible that the feminine Rock refers to the See of St Peter? Peter was the first to occupy that See, others later, but the See itself (feminine) remains a constant.

Something like: you are petro and on this petra I will build my See?

 

[JonNC]

=Marybeloved;8516345]With all due respect, Jon, you make it sound like the confession was just one ordinary thing that any could make, only it just happened to be Simon bar Jonah this time, but the scenario is not presented quite like that, is it? St. Peter makes his confession

You make a good point here, and it wasn’t my intent to belittle the importance of the confession, nor of the role of God the Father in it. And I am not, further, belittling St. Peter.

and our Lord declares that in fact it is not his (Peter’s) confession but God the Father’s!- Why should we begrudge God’s own choices?

Not at all.

It’s like begrudging God’s choice of Mary, saying Oh, she’s nothing special, just happened to say Yes in that one moment- So is she really alone the Mother of God?

Again, not at all.

But, immediately Peter utters the divinely revealed confession (the sign of his election by God the Father testified by Christ) Jesus names him Rock and declares that he shall build his church upon this Rock…and that’s supposed to mean “everyone”?

I’m not denying the importance of Peter, and I said elsewhere in this thread that to state it is only his confession of faith Christ is referring to requires theological gymnastics.

How many people did God name Rock? In fact I remember reading that before St. Peter, people weren’t named Rock. In Judaism that was God’s designation, no-one else’s

All the more reason not to minimize the overriding importance of his confession of faith.

That’s like asking, which is more important?- Mary, the woman or her “Be it to me as you say”? Of course both are important- Both are God’s choice !
How about God the Father’s choice of revelation to St. Peter alone- Is that not as important? St. Peter wasn’t just lucky in his answer, you know. He was chosen- why should we try to diminish God’s own election? Doesn’t he know better?

Clearly, the question then is how do we see the importance of his see in Rome. The early Church holds the answer to that, at the Council of Nicea.

Peace!

and also with you.

Jon

 

[JohnVIII]

Something like: you are petro and on this petra I will build my See?

Well maybe “Something” like that, but really, more like, ‘You are Peter (Masculine), and upon The See of Peter (Feminine) I will build my Church’.