Pope Fiction

[cascherman]

“It was written by Clement, bishop of Rome, around the year A.D. 80.” Pope Fiction, p. 119

Adventure out into the further world of scholarship and you will find the year 96 in many other books (I have found it in anything from the actual publishing of the Letter itself to the a papal document from Benedict).

Do not forego Catholicism altogether because of one book’s arguments, there is more to see…

And again, if you are not converting to Roman Catholicism because you see discrepancies in one author’s argumentation then find another author. Try the ECFs.

 

[cascherman]

Ah, I figured out the conundrum. It was previously held that the letter was written as early as the year 70 in the 1990’s. But, almost universally it is held at this point that it was written after the death of the current emperor at that time, making it after 96, and he died in 98-99.

Depending on when the book (Pope Fiction) was written, we may not have had the knowledge we have now, and he attributed the year 80 to it.

 

[cascherman]

ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/b16ChrstChrch31.HTM

These “calamitous events” can be identified with Domitian’s persecution: therefore, the Letter must have been written just after the Emperor’s death and at the end of the persecution, that is, immediately after the year 96.

newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm

It is now universally acknowledged, after Lightfoot, that it was written about the last year of Domitian (Harnack) or immediately after his death in 96 (Funk).

saintwiki.com/index.php?title=First_Epistle_of_Clement_to_the_Corinthians

The probability seems, on the whole, to be in favour of the Domitian period, so that the Epistle may be dated about a.d. 97.

Early Christian Writings: Penguin Classics

The date of the epistle is generally reckoned to be about A.D. 96. The messengers who bore the epistle are described as ‘men whose lives have been irreproachable from youth to old age’, that is Christians of the second generation. (bold added) pg.20

 

[Algernon]

And also considering the idea that Peter’s confession was the rock and not Peter himself was not heard from until protestant apologetics arose. The early Church is somewhat unanimous in agreeing the rock is Peter, that will tell you something on how to interpret the verse. (If anyone has quotes from ECFs supporting his confession being the rock, I’d love to see them, but I have not found any.)

Here are some…

“And he [Peter] further received surpassing honors; for he was entrusted by Him with the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the confession of his faith was made the firm foundation for the Church. For thou, He says, art a stone; and upon this stone I will build My Church; and the gates of hell shall not overpower it.” (Saint Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on the Gospel of Saint Luke, Homily 53, trans. R. Payne Smith (Studion Publishers, Inc., 1983), p. 232.

“For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, You are Christ, Son of the living God, Jesus said to divine Peter: You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church. Now by the word rock, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: Its foundations are the holy mountains. Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith.” (Cyril of Alexandria, Commentary on Isaiah, IV, 2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col. 940)

“Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”( St. John Chrysostom, In Pentecosten, Migne 52.806.75-807.1)

“The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession.” (St. John Chrysostom 53rd Homily on St. Matthew)

“And perhaps that which Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16 if we say it as Peter, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven shining in our heart, we too become as Peter, being pronounced blessed as he was, because that the grounds on which he was pronounced blessed apply also to us, by reason of the fact that flesh and blood have not revealed to us with regard to Jesus that He is Christ, the Son of the living God, but the Father in heaven, from the very heavens, that our citizenship may be in heaven, Philippians 3:20 revealing to us the revelation which carries up to heaven those who take away every veil from the heart, and receive “the spirit of the wisdom and revelation” of God. Ephesians 1:17 And if we too have said like Peter, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “You are Peter,” etc. Matthew 16:18 For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, 1 Corinthians 10:4 and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.” (Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book XII, 10)

 

[Algernon]

Here are some more…

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, Thou art the Rock, but rather Thou art Peter. The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, the Rock …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.” (St Augustine, 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

“The word Rock has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles.” (St Jerome, Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII)

“The Rock is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built.” (St. Hilary, 2nd book on the Trinity)

“This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons for they will attack will not prevail. They will take up arms but they will not conquer.” (St. John of Damascus, Homily on the Transfiguration, M.P.G., Vol. 96, Col. 554-555)

 

[holdencaulfield]

I as well started getting arguments from Orthodox Christians about the Papacy. After doing some research about the Papacy, I realized that the Orthodox are completely wrong. All of the Church Fathers agree that the Roman Church has the authority and power over the other churches. To say otherwise is merely a cop-out. Of course the Papacy didn’t exist as it does now, however it was still there and people acknowledged it has leadership. Read the Early Church Fathers, I would be suprised if any disagreed with this.

 

[Algernon]

Adventure out into the further world of scholarship and you will find the year 96 in many other books (I have found it in anything from the actual publishing of the Letter itself to the a papal document from Benedict).

Do not forego Catholicism altogether because of one book’s arguments, there is more to see…

And again, if you are not converting to Roman Catholicism because you see discrepancies in one author’s argumentation then find another author. Try the ECFs.

Read the Early Church Fathers, I would be suprised if any disagreed with this.

I have, and will continue to do so. So far I haven’t seen a consensus among the ECF’s for or against papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. They all agree–as do I–that Peter was first among the Apostles, and that Rome had at least a primacy of honor. But my feeling is that if the Early Church understood the papacy the way modern Roman Catholics do, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about it.

A

 

[Algernon]

Thou art Peter,—and upon this—rock-- I will build my Church.

su-----ei-Petros—kai epi-----taute-petra—oikodomeo----Ekklesia

Taute in Greek is a pronoun, and it refers to the most recent preceding noun, in this case, Petros.

Even if this were not the case, in verse 17 there is no subject whatsoever that one could try to say taute refers to. The Confession of Peter does not exist as a noun in the entire Caesarea Phillipi discourse. The only subject in the section is Simon. Verse 17 reads, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed to you, but my Father Who is in Heaven.” In English, the word “it” is often added, but it does not exist in the Greek.

Furthermore, the words καγω δε σοι λεγω at the beginning of verse 18 seperate the context and the parts of grammar from verse 17, making verse 18 an entirely new thought. The only thing that taute could possibly refer to is Peter, the Rock.

So, for all these centuries, the Greeks in the East have misunderstood this, while the Latins in the West have gotten it right???

Sorry, Lazerlike, but that’s a bit hard to swallow.

A

 

[cascherman]

So, for all these centuries, the Greeks in the East have misunderstood this, while the Latins in the West have gotten it right???

Sorry, Lazerlike, but that’s a bit hard to swallow.

A

Well, protestants have been misunderstanding it for almost 500 years, why not double it?

 

[cascherman]

Algernon,

If your quotes are definitive proof that those men never believed Peter was the Rock then a few of them may be contradicting themselves later or earlier.

One of your Chrysostom quotes is bad, the 53 homily on Matthew is about the multiplication of the 5,000 loaves and fishes.

John Chrysostom:

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, ‘Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven’; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.” (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)

Hilary:

“Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

Origen:

“Peter,** upon whom is built the Church of Chris**t, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful.” (Commentaries on John 5,3)

Jerome:

As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! (Letter to Pope Damasus)

Now for the rest, aside from Augustine, I will say that it at least appears they did not believe Peter was the rock, but if you look to find what they truly did believe about Peter you will see it is not very far off of what the others believes, aside from being the rock.

They stress he was foremost among the apostles, that he alone has the keys to the kingdom, and that he was the shepherd for all Christians.This sounds pretty similar to what we believe the modern day pope to be.

Check here for more evidence for how eastern ECFs felt about Peter and his role.
web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

As for Augustine, as your quote indicates, he acknowledges he has said in the past that Peter was the rock. If you look at the context of the quote you will see he is presenting multiple interpretations for the quote and not necessarily backing either one. He actually says at the end something to the effect of “I will let the reader decide how it is to be taken.” Context is important, and this is a great example.

Either way, as I said before, the men you quoted still held a higher regard for Peter from the other apostles if they indeed did not apply the rock to Peter himself, which it appears a few may have.

Naturally his successors would inherit that role, as one cannot institute a shepherd and then when that shepherd dies leave the flock without a leader for the next generations.

 

[Pons]

About the identity of the “rock” -

I’m sure this has already been mentioned in the thread, but rock = Peter and rock = Peter’s faith (and rock = Christ) aren’t mutually exclusive according to the Cathecism. Jesus is the living rock, who bestows “rock-hood” on Simon through and because of his rock-like solid faith. Something like that.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I have, and will continue to do so. So far I haven’t seen a consensus among the ECF’s for or against papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. They all agree–as do I–that Peter was first among the Apostles, and that Rome had at least a primacy of honor. But my feeling is that if the Early Church understood the papacy the way modern Roman Catholics do, there wouldn’t be any ambiguity about it.

A

That is because the Roman Church developed overtime and continues to.

 

[holdencaulfield]

Naturally his successors would inherit that role, as one cannot institute a shepherd and then when that shepherd dies leave the flock without a leader for the next generations.

Nice Post

 

[Lazerlike42]

So, for all these centuries, the Greeks in the East have misunderstood this, while the Latins in the West have gotten it right???

Sorry, Lazerlike, but that’s a bit hard to swallow.

A

Algernon, we’ve quoted Eastern fathers who identify Peter as the rock. So far, everytime someone cites a very clear instance of this sort of thing, you’ve not said anything about it. Now you said once before that you assure us you’re not ignoring these things, and I can certainly believe that. I can believe that you are reading all the posts, and some of the quotations you file away in your brain and ponder them.

The problem I see is when you say you’re not ignoring these things and then you say things like this that imply that there were no eastern fathers who believed the Catholic position. That’s what gives the impression of you ignoring things. If you say, “I see your point with what Chrysostom et al said, but there just doesn’t seem to be a universal support of point X,” then we can deal with that and talk about that. But when there are a bunch of quotes on the thread from Easterners that say one thing, and then you say that there were no easterners that believed it, that makes it look like you’re not reading those quotes, you know what I mean?

NOW that being said, one comment on the post you quoted:

I wasn’t suggesting that it’s impossible to say that perhaps an interpretation of the passage might be that Peter’s faith is the rock. Some of the fathers certainly interpreted it this way. St. Chrysostom did. Of course, he and many of those other fathers also believed Peter himself was the rock. It can be that each of those was a rock.

I was saying that a translation that says “and on this rock - that is, the confession - I will build My Church” is abominable. There’s simply no way whatsoever to translate the passage that way, at all. I cited all of the words involved and explained the grammar behind the passage to show that. My point was that some in the east apparently try to pass this off as a translation, and that that ought to be a warning of how far some will go to defend the current Eastern Orthodox viewpoint.

If you want to cite St. Chrysostom and said that the passage can be interpreted to mean Peter’s confession is the rock, that’s fine with me - as long as you recognize that he also believed Peter was the Rock. I’ll agree with you that this is an interpretation which is possible. Just don’t try to say that this makes an acceptable translation, because that’s worse than the NLT rendering the Last Supper account as “This means My body.”

Peace and God bless

 

[holdencaulfield]

Good post. It’s true, not all Church Fathers did agree that Rome is the seat of the Church, however most did. It’s merely a cop-out to say otherwise to this. I could see why some are skeptical, however when you read the Early Church Fathers, it is exceedingly clear that the Holy See is Rome.

 

[Algernon]

Either way, as I said before, the men you quoted still held a higher regard for Peter from the other apostles if they indeed did not apply the rock to Peter himself, which it appears a few may have.

Yes, this is exactly what I’ve been saying. But *no where *do I see any indication–not even a hint–of papal infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

If they understood it that way, would there be any ambiguity? No.

Naturally his successors would inherit that role, as one cannot institute a shepherd and then when that shepherd dies leave the flock without a leader for the next generations.

I agree, and so does St John Chrysostom: “This,was not said to the Apostles and bishops only, but also to each one of us, however humble, to whom has been committed the care of the flock.” (Upon St. Matthew, 77th homily.)

A

 

[Algernon]

That is because the Roman Church developed overtime and continues to.

Yes, that’s part of the problem.

A

 

[Algernon]

Lazerlike,
Your right. That reply of mine was too hasty.
When I cited all those Early Church Fathers, it was because someone else had requested it.

Part of my problem is that there is no consensus among the ECFs about whether or not Peter was the Rock, and not the least hint of anything resembling the modern RC understanding of supreme papal jurisdiction and infallibility.

Now holfencaulfield is telling me that it’s because it developed. If that’s the case, then why bother even to debate the meaning of Matthew 16 at all?

Did papal infallibility “develop” or was it understood from the beginning. Is there a consensus even among modern Roman Catholics???

A

 

[Algernon]

Good post. It’s true, not all Church Fathers did agree that Rome is the seat of the Church, however most did. It’s merely a cop-out to say otherwise to this. I could see why some are skeptical, however when you read the Early Church Fathers, it is exceedingly clear that the Holy See is Rome.

Most? Do “most” modern Roman Catholics believe that Rome is the seat of the Church?

A

 

[Mickey]

Mickey, none of those claims have anything to do with the translation of Matthew 16:18. The fact is that every rule of Greek grammar in the book completely rules out the possibility that the rock is Peter’s confession, and every rule in the book requires that Peter himself is the Rock. That’s all I was talking about in that post.

Wrong. The majority of the Fathers interpreted that verse as St Peter’s confession. This was posted many times on the Eastern forum.