Protestants declare Peter is the Rock, Rock on

[constantconvert]

As a former protestant, I can say that for me it was the fact that Jesus changes Peter’s name, the same way he changed Abram to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel. Every time God changes someone’s name it’s a major game-changer in the way he’s about to do things

St. Hilary: A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?..And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built…that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth…Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.

Cyril of Alexandria: But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things—Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. 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 (Commentary on Isaiah IV.2, M.P.G., Vol. 70, Col. 940).

The quotes you’ve found are correct-- of course it’s faith in Christ that founds the Church, but these quotes don’t **deny **that Peter is the human person upon whom the church is founded. Why can’t we at least get *Catholics *to agree that Peter is the head of the church? :crying:

 

[CopticChristian]

The Catholic position as enunciated by the first Vatican Council does not allow for development of an understanding of Peter as the rock. The claim of the decrees of Vatican I state that it has always, everywhere and at all times been the position of the universal church that the rock of 16:18 refers to Peter and that it has always been understood by the universal church that the bishop of Rome is the head of the church, along with papal infallibility. The problem with that is that it wasn’t the majority of the early church that interpreted 16:18 that way, as demonstrated by numerous sources in the fathers, and the Eastern churches reject that the headship of the Pope is a part of sacred tradition.

Up until Newman, the theory of doctrinal development was repudiated by the Western See. Newman’s theory is a capitulation to the Protestant argument that Roman doctrine has changed over the years and was his attempt to explain why.

Igg,

As you know Luther produced the first Catechism as I recall and prior to this the OHCAC did not have a formal Catechism. What appears in the Catechism and Church documents in writing does not mean that what was practiced and believed did not exist.

The Eastern Catholics have recently produced a catechism

I don’t know if the Oriental Orthodox or Eastern Orthodox have a catechism. Just because it is written…as you know many are illiterate particularly early in the Church…the absence of something written does not mean it was not believed and practiced.

The bible itself is a witness to that. It contains some but not all that occured at the time of Christ and yet we know that there are things that were believed and practiced that needed no clarification because they were practiced and believed.

You cling to writing…Karate, Judo, Zen, Wing Chun, Yoga, Meditation, and various and sundry practices are taught without books or writing…The Old Testament was memorized and taught by the early Jews and they had an oral tradition that was later written…

So what is the problem here…just look at Protestant practices and innovations like the sinners prayer, the altar call, the augsberg confession…beliefs that were not written but practiced and then written… It is not like the augsberg confession was drawn up willy nilly…it was based on belief and practice and then formulated in writing…so what is the difference here?

 

[CopticChristian]

The Catholic position as enunciated by the first Vatican Council does not allow for development of an understanding of Peter as the rock. The claim of the decrees of Vatican I state that it has always, everywhere and at all times been the position of the universal church that the rock of 16:18 refers to Peter and that it has always been understood by the universal church that the bishop of Rome is the head of the church, along with papal infallibility. The problem with that is that it wasn’t the majority of the early church that interpreted 16:18 that way, as demonstrated by numerous sources in the fathers, and the Eastern churches reject that the headship of the Pope is a part of sacred tradition.

Up until Newman, the theory of doctrinal development was repudiated by the Western See. Newman’s theory is a capitulation to the Protestant argument that Roman doctrine has changed over the years and was his attempt to explain why.

The Development of Doctrine – An early church father of the 5th century distinguishes the legitimate growth in understanding of divine revelation from the false alteration of religion and Catholic orthodox dogma in the Church of Jesus Christ, the Son of God the Father.
St. Vincent of Lerins’ Commonitorium (Cap 23: PL 50, 667-668)

there to be no development of religion in the Church of Christ? Certainly, there is to be development and on the largest scale.

Who can be so grudging to men, so full of hate for God, as to try to prevent it? But it must truly be development of the faith, not alteration of the faith. Development means that each thing expands to be itself, while alteration means that a thing is changed from one thing into another.

The understanding, knowledge and wisdom of one and all, of individuals as well as of the whole Church, ought then to make great and vigorous progress with the passing of the ages and the centuries, but only along its own line of development, that is, with the same doctrine, the same meaning and the same import.

The religion of souls should follow the law of development of bodies. Though bodies develop and unfold their component parts with the passing of the years, they always remain what they were. There is a great difference between the flower of childhood and the maturity of age, but those who become old are the very same people who were once young. Though the condition and appearance of one and the same individual may change, it is one and the same nature, one and the same person.

The tiny members of unweaned children and the grown members of young men are still the same members. Men have the same number of limbs as children. Whatever develops at a later age was already present in seminal form; there is nothing new in old age that was not already latent in childhood.

There is no doubt, then, that the legitimate and correct rule of development, the established and wonderful order of growth, is this: in older people the fullness of years always brings to completion those members and forms that the wisdom of the Creator fashioned beforehand in their earlier years.

If, however, the human form were to turn into some shape that did not belong to its own nature, or even if something were added to the sum of its members or subtracted from it, the whole body would necessarily perish or become grotesque or at least be enfeebled. In the same way, the doctrine of the Christian religion should properly follow these laws of development, that is, by becoming firmer over the years, more ample in the course of time, more exalted as it advances in age.

In ancient times our ancestors sowed the good seed in the harvest field of the Church. It would be very wrong and unfitting if we, their descendants, were to reap, not the genuine wheat of truth but the intrusive growth of error.

On the contrary, what is right and fitting is this: there should be no inconsistency between first and last, but we should reap true doctrine from the growth of true teaching, so that when, in the course of time, those first sowings yield an increase it may flourish and be tended in our day also.

 

[IggyAntiochus]

As a former protestant, I can say that for me it was the fact that Jesus changes Peter’s name, the same way he changed Abram to Abraham, and Jacob to Israel. Every time God changes someone’s name it’s a major game-changer in the way he’s about to do things

The quotes you’ve found are correct-- of course it’s faith in Christ that founds the Church, but these quotes don’t **deny **that Peter is the human person upon whom the church is founded. Why can’t we at least get *Catholics *to agree that Peter is the head of the church? :crying:

Yes, it wasn’t my purpose in posting them to say that it wasn’t built on Peter. It was only to demonstrate, because another poster asked me to post them, that the rock = Peter interpretation is not one that is universal or majority. Of course it’s built on Peter. It is built on all of the Apostles.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, it wasn’t my purpose in posting them to say that it wasn’t built on Peter. It was only to demonstrate, because another poster asked me to post them, that the rock = Peter interpretation is not one that is universal or majority. Of course it’s built on Peter. It is built on all of the Apostles.

Exactly, Iggy.

ISTM that it is theological gymnastics for Lutherans to say that 16:18 is only about Peter’s confession of faith. OTOH, it also seems to me that it is theological gymnatics for Catholics to say that it is only about Peter the man. It is about both, and most importantly about the fact that his faith in God made this understanding possible for him.
Where I differ with our Catholic siblings is not whether Peter has a place of leadership amongst the Apostles, but instead when they claim that 16:18 means, by extension, universal jurisdiction.

Jon

 

[Andre1000]

Yes… there are multiple interpretations of the passage. It allows for Peter being the rock. However, again, it isn’t a universal one. Either among Protestants or early Catholics.

Maybe this part in the bible has three meanings:
Peter = Rock
Confession = Rock
Jesus = Rock
They do not contradict each other, and we all know that the Church also bases on Jesus and the Confession.
Important to know is did the Church fathers say that any of these interpretations is wrong?

 

[mikelionheart]

Maybe this part in the bible has three meanings:
Peter = Rock
Confession = Rock
Jesus = Rock
They do not contradict each other, and we all know that the Church also bases on Jesus and the Confession.
Important to know is did the Church fathers say that any of these interpretations is wrong?

Different meanings is the teaching of the Church.

Of course, Protestants can’t get their heads around layered meanings.

Bless.

 

[JonNC]

Different meanings is the teaching of the Church.

Of course, Protestants can’t get their heads around layered meanings.

Bless.

Is that the impression I left you, or that Iggy left you?

Jon

 

[Hail_Linus]

St. Hilary: A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar–Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?..And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built…that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth…Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1955), On The Trinity, Book VI.36,37; Book II.23; Book VI.20.

We need to put St. Hilary’s writing in its proper context.
First we should note the purpose of the Book VI which can be summarized by the very first sentence, “It is with a full knowledge of the dangers and passions of the time that I have ventured to attack this wild and godless heresy, which asserts that the Son of God is a creature.”

Second, we should note that St. Hilary even mentions how the heresy of Jesus being a created being was condemned by the “blessed Pope”. By this we see his reverence for the Pope. He did not write this with any purpose of undermining the papacy. In fact he was very loyal to the Pope.

Third, we need to recognize these heretics were not denying Peter as the Rock of the Catholic Church; they were denying that Jesus was God.

I believe what St. Hilary is arguing in the parts of the document you cited is that Peter made a confession of faith that Jesus is God and not a created being. He argues the reason Peter is blessed is specifically for this confession of faith and that this faith is the reason he was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Additionally, I do not think St. Hilary separates Peter from his confession for he writes " This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven." A faith cannot have the keys, only a person can have the keys. It should be understood that Peter’s faith got him the keys.
*
I cannot comment on Cyril of Alexandria because I do not have the full text.*

 

[AbideWithMe]

Different meanings is the teaching of the Church.

Of course, Protestants can’t get their heads around layered meanings.

Bless.

With blessings like that, who needs curses?

 

[SaintPatrick333]

I will stick with the majority of the church fathers with their interpretation of that one

You know that Luther renounced the Lutheran church? The very monster he created? He renounced it on his deathbed and converted back to Catholicism. Kind of takes the platform of credibility right out from under the lutheran churches feet.

 

[AbideWithMe]

He argues the reason Peter is blessed is specifically for this confession of faith and that this faith is the reason he was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven.

Additionally, I do not think St. Hilary separates Peter from his confession for he writes " This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven." A faith cannot have the keys, only a person can have the keys. It should be understood that Peter’s faith got him the keys.

HailLinus----

This is just where I have the difficulty----“Peter’s faith got him the keys.” I have no problem with that in itself. Peter was chosen by Jesus to follow Him; he spent years with Jesus and knew Him intimately; he was tested, humbled, and seasoned. He was, eventually, as worthy a representative of Jesus as any human could possibly be.

But what of some of the worst of the popes who clearly did not have Peter’s faith? If St. Hilary doesn’t separate Peter from his confession, why would those popes who didn’t have Peter’s faith be Peter’s voice?

 

[CopticChristian]

You know that Luther renounced the Lutheran church? The very monster he created? He renounced it on his deathbed and converted back to Catholicism. Kind of takes the platform of credibility right out from under the lutheran churches feet.

Can you provide me the evidence for this about Luther? I did not know this.

 

[CopticChristian]

HailLinus----

This is just where I have the difficulty----“Peter’s faith got him the keys.” I have no problem with that in itself. Peter was chosen by Jesus to follow Him; he spent years with Jesus and knew Him intimately; he was tested, humbled, and seasoned. He was, eventually, as worthy a representative of Jesus as any human could possibly be.

But what of some of the worst of the popes who clearly did not have Peter’s faith? If St. Hilary doesn’t separate Peter from his confession, why would those popes who didn’t have Peter’s faith be Peter’s voice?

Abide,

You are confusing the message with the messenger. Evangelicals have had scandals and those leaders when they delivered the message were faithful…when they were not they were human…if you believe that the Holy Spirit delivers us to the truth…then when they were messengers of the truth they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you want to discard your Evangelical heritage because of scandal…?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

Aimee Semple McPherson, 1920s–40s
One of the most famous evangelist scandals involved Canadian-born Aimee Semple McPherson in the 1920s, who allegedly faked her own death.

Lonnie Frisbee, 1970s–1980s
Both churches later disowned him because he struggled with homosexuality, which he always taught was sin, removing him first from leadership positions, then ultimately firing him. He died of AIDS-related complications in 1993.

Marjoe Gortner, early 1970s
Gortner rose to fame in the late 1940s as a child preacher, but he had simply been trained to do this by his parents and he had no personal faith. He was able to perform “miracles” and received large amounts of money in donations. After suffering a crisis of conscience, he invited a film crew to accompany him on a final preaching tour

Jimmy Swaggart, Marvin Gorman, Jim and Tammy Bakker, 1986 and 1999

Melissa Scott, 1992

Ted Haggard, 2006

There is an ongoing list of scandals of Evangelicals found at this website…Yes there were less than perfect Popes…but Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail and the OHCAC is here in spite of the less than perfect Popes…

 

[AbideWithMe]

Can you provide me the evidence for this about Luther? I did not know this.

Coptic—

It isn’t true. That’s why you didn’t know it.

 

[AbideWithMe]

Abide,

You are confusing the message with the messenger. Evangelicals have had scandals and those leaders when they delivered the message were faithful…when they were not they were human…if you believe that the Holy Spirit delivers us to the truth…then when they were messengers of the truth they were guided by the Holy Spirit. Do you want to discard your Evangelical heritage because of scandal…?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_involving_evangelical_Christians

There is an ongoing list of scandals of Evangelicals found at this website…Yes there were less than perfect Popes…but Jesus said the gates of Hades would not prevail and the OHCAC is here in spite of the less than perfect Popes…

Coptic—

That isn’t an adequate comparison…but I’m going to sleep.

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

It isn’t true. That’s why you didn’t know it.

So what you are saying is what I now know is false unless someone proves it to be true. Is that correct?

 

[CopticChristian]

Coptic—

That isn’t an adequate comparison…but I’m going to sleep.

It is not an adequate comparison in your opinion.

 

[Hail_Linus]

HailLinus----

This is just where I have the difficulty----“Peter’s faith got him the keys.” I have no problem with that in itself. Peter was chosen by Jesus to follow Him; he spent years with Jesus and knew Him intimately; he was tested, humbled, and seasoned. He was, eventually, as worthy a representative of Jesus as any human could possibly be.

But what of some of the worst of the popes who clearly did not have Peter’s faith? If St. Hilary doesn’t separate Peter from his confession, why would those popes who didn’t have Peter’s faith be Peter’s voice?

The faith that St. Hilary is referring to is the faith that Jesus is God. Even the worst Popes never denied that. Those bad Popes never tried to change the dogma of the Trinity (nor any other dogma). In other words, the Trinity is the foundation of our Religion. It is so much a foundation that it is the reason why Catholics look at Trinitarian Protestants as Christians. That said, I am not going to defend the bad Popes; they are probably in Hell. While I would not agree with, I can appreciate why they would make you question the papacy. This was also a problem for me for a long time.

 

[AbideWithMe]

So what you are saying is what I now know is false unless someone proves it to be true. Is that correct?

Coptic—

I meant that you haven’t heard of the deathbed conversion of Luther because serious Catholic and Protestant scholars recognize that there’s no evidence for it but there is evidence against it. So if you’re reading decently even-handed, careful historical material you’d probably never even hear of the alleged conversion.