The Papacy and Greek Language

[Reuben_J]

And he did not say, “You will be called Peter,” by which name he was called, but distinctly he says: You are Peter, and upon this rock, from which rock you are made, I will build my Church. Not that now, so that it is said, so much that he was strong, but that he will be made in the future from Christ, He who calls those who are not, as if they are those. (Romans 4:17) And through the Holy Spirit he would thus be strengthened: So that neither death, nor life, nor present things, nor future things, nor any created thing is able to separate him from love, which is in Christ (Romans 8:38-39).

Just to point out on this. I didn’t follow the argument so please excuse me if this is already redundant. However, Jesus did not necessarily have to say “You will be called Peter,” in order to name him Peter. In a manner of speaking, he could just say, “You are Peter,” to name him so, which is more like a command, a declaration from one perhaps, who had the authority to say so. And who had that more than Jesus himself?

It is reasonable to say that when Jesus said that, he was looking at Peter, face to face, rather than a speech to the whole apostles who were within ear drop and heard everything.

Wow, it was the renaming of the disciple Simon, and with that the authority was given.

If I am to choose between the two explanations for Mt 16, I would think this would be the most-straight forward that one does not have to explain anything as it was self-explained.

The second explanation that it was about the confession of Simon son of Jonah, seems to be more of a justification to deny the first, not to mention that there was nothing spoken about confession of faith at all.

One can say that Jesus also could have said, “And on this confession of faith I will build my Church”. He did not.

 

[Reuben_J]

Edit: Jesus did not say “You will be called Peter,” because at that pronouncement, “You are Peter,” the changing of name took place with immediate effect, now and then. Thus Peter or Cephas could be referred when speaking of Simon from that moment onward.

 

[prodromos]

Edit: Jesus did not say “You will be called Peter,” because at that pronouncement, “You are Peter,” the changing of name took place with immediate effect, now and then. Thus Peter or Cephas could be referred when speaking of Simon from that moment onward.

If that was the case, why does Jesus call him by the name Simon after His resurrection?

 

[Gorgias]

I’m sorry I was wrong. I intended to say that Koines Greek did not exist when Jesus was alive.

Umm… but… Koine Greek did exist in the 1st century A.D.! In fact, it’s the Greek that was spoken in Palestine at that time!

I don’t understand everything else your saying.

You seemed to be saying that Jesus changed the usage of the word ‘rock’ and turned it into a proper name (‘Peter’). That’s not the case (and neither is it what the web page you cited is actually saying). Rather, where the NT uses ‘Petros’, it’s the name ‘Peter’, and where it uses ‘petra’, it’s the word ‘rock’. That’s all.

 

[Gorgias]

Thank you for the correction. Do you know if was composed far later than the lifetime of Bede or if it is from around the same period? If it is still pre-Fourth Crusade, I would imagine it would still be of interest to us, even if the author is anonymous.

12th century, IIRC, so far later than Bede.

As for the latter part, the Latin Church was far more diffuse to say the least than most people know until the eleventh century. So we should not discount any writings simply because they are post-500 or whatever.

The problem, though, is the relevance that one might assign to such a writing at such a late date. If I uncovered a text that claimed that Jesus was a manifestation of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, what would its value be? Well, if we were to date it to the 200’s AD, we’d be amazed – that would demonstrate that, prior to the conciliar definition of Jesus’ divinity, it’s possible that mainstream Christianity believed this about Jesus! On the other hand, if we date it to the 21st century, then we disregard it – clearly, Christianity had already defined Jesus’ divinity, so this text would represent only a fringe belief (or, perhaps, one individual’s attempt to re-define what had already been defined).

Similarly here, discussions of the ‘metaphor’ cannot be construed to mean that the author is reflecting a non-standard interpretation of Jesus’ words vis-a-vis Peter. Rather, a ‘late’ document might be interpreted simply as a meditation on the metaphor present in Jesus’ words, and not a rebuttal of what the Church had already defined at that point.

Whatever the primacy of Peter means exactly, these later texts are just as important in understanding it and its historical reception and interpretation.

If that’s what they were intending to do. I’m not certain you’ve demonstrated that this was their intent.

 

[myway]

Umm… but… Koine Greek did exist in the 1st century A.D.! In fact, it’s the Greek that was spoken in Palestine at that time!

You seemed to be saying that Jesus changed the usage of the word ‘rock’ and turned it into a proper name (‘Peter’). That’s not the case (and neither is it what the web page you cited is actually saying). Rather, where the NT uses ‘Petros’, it’s the name ‘Peter’, and where it uses ‘petra’, it’s the word ‘rock’. That’s all.

Thank You for alI your corrections. I am just starting to learn more about Koines Greek.

In the website it says Petros apears 162 times in the New Testament. Earlier in a another post you said it was there 156 times.

Please explain.

 

[Reuben_J]

If that was the case, why does Jesus call him by the name Simon after His resurrection?

If I am following my reasoning, what I can think of is that after the renaming which was to take effect right during the pronouncement itself (by Jesus), that ‘Simon’ was not discarded off altogether. Thus he was still called Simon notwithstanding that the new name ‘Peter’ was already in effect.

You got a point though. My point was it needed not necessarily at the exclusion of the other, the reason also why it was not necessarily that Jesus must say, “You shall be called Peter” for him to name him so. Saying that “You are Peter” was already an act of renaming him, now and then.

 

[Rohzek]

Just to point out on this. I didn’t follow the argument so please excuse me if this is already redundant. However, Jesus did not necessarily have to say “You will be called Peter,” in order to name him Peter. In a manner of speaking, he could just say, “You are Peter,” to name him so, which is more like a command, a declaration from one perhaps, who had the authority to say so. And who had that more than Jesus himself?

It is reasonable to say that when Jesus said that, he was looking at Peter, face to face, rather than a speech to the whole apostles who were within ear drop and heard everything.

Wow, it was the renaming of the disciple Simon, and with that the authority was given.

If I am to choose between the two explanations for Mt 16, I would think this would be the most-straight forward that one does not have to explain anything as it was self-explained.

The second explanation that it was about the confession of Simon son of Jonah, seems to be more of a justification to deny the first, not to mention that there was nothing spoken about confession of faith at all.

One can say that Jesus also could have said, “And on this confession of faith I will build my Church”. He did not.

I believe Paschasius Radbertus (for others see: #18) is alluding to divine foreknowledge and predestination. That’s why he quotes Romans 4:17. He’s basically saying that Christ doesn’t have to say “You will be called Peter” precisely because what will be God’s is already God’s in a sense. And that’s why he follows up with a quote from Romans 8:38-39. It seems to me that Radbertus is taking this line of thinking because later Peter denies Christ three times. Radbertus, therefore, thinks that Peter still has a long ways to go to meet Christ’s expectations, as we all do. prodromos also raises an interesting point and aspect that I did not think of. I hope that clears things up.

As for the second explanation that speaks about the heart of confession and the confession itself, I don’t see how it contradicts anything about what Radbertus had previously said. In fact, I think it melds quite well with other things that he has said. Dungal of Bobbio has a similar interpretation and doesn’t see any conflict at all. Lastly, there was a confession of faith. In Matthew 16:16 Peter declares Jesus to be the Son of the living God.

If that’s what they were intending to do. I’m not certain you’ve demonstrated that this was their intent.

My intent from the get-go was to call into question the historical validity of what has been declared a sound and historical interpretation of the Keys and Rock in this thread pertaining to a specific passage in the Gospel of Matthew. So I posted Latin interpretations spanning nearly 900 years that show a clear and lively tradition. There shouldn’t be anything suspect about this, especially when some of the most queasy ones that a Catholic might find come from highly respected saints in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism. My argument in short is that what others have previously claimed to be a traditional and correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 is nothing but a later innovation. Your point about the 21st-century stuff is valid, although not applicable here. Both our churches claim to believe in Sacred Tradition. Therefore, we should look at the tradition and see what it is, particularly during the post-Nicene period to the High Middle Ages, where both of our respective churches underwent significant development. This time-frame is most critical to understanding ourselves.

 

[Wesrock]

I made an exception for the Orthodox. Feel free to share the Fathers’ insights. The ban is only effective on Catholics who butcher the Fathers’ writings in order to arrive at Papal supremacy.

This is quite a prejudgment, is it not?

I’m going to research early commentaries on Matthew 16, and will refrain from simply posting the first thing I find without further research.

It is pretty obvious that Jesus is alluding to Isaiah 22:22, whatever you want to draw from that, though I won’t go further than that again right now.

Even if Matthew 16 was not used as support, I would hardly say that the primacy of the Church of Rome was unattested to.

 

[Reuben_J]

Rohzek:

I believe Paschasius Radbertus (for others see: #18) is alluding to divine foreknowledge and predestination. That’s why he quotes Romans 4:17. He’s basically saying that Christ doesn’t have to say “You will be called Peter” precisely because what will be God’s is already God’s in a sense. And that’s why he follows up with a quote from Romans 8:38-39. It seems to me that Radbertus is taking this line of thinking because later Peter denies Christ three times. Radbertus, therefore, thinks that Peter still has a long ways to go to meet Christ’s expectations, as we all do. I hope that clears things up.

I disagree with him but again it is just a personal take. Let’s look at the quote again:

And he did not say, “You will be called Peter,” by which name he was called, but distinctly he says: You are Peter, and upon this rock, from which rock you are made, I will build my Church. Not that now, so that it is said, so much that he was strong, but that he will be made in the future from Christ, He who calls those who are not, as if they are those. (Romans 4:17) And through the Holy Spirit he would thus be strengthened: So that neither death, nor life, nor present things, nor future things, nor any created thing is able to separate him from love, which is in Christ (Romans 8:38-39).

I agree that Peter still has a long way to go alright and John 21 about feeding the sheep demonstrated that. If he was disputing that Jesus named him Peter in Mt 16, then this reason is quite irrelevant in my opinion. When would the name “Peter” really took effect if not at that point in time when Jesus said, “You are Peter”?

In any case the development in Peter’s character was gradual but decisively during the Pentecost as all the other apostles too.

Rohzek:

As for the second explanation that speaks about the heart of confession and the confession itself, I don’t see how it contradicts anything about what Radbertus had previously said. In fact, I think it melds quite well with other things that he has said. Dungal of Bobbio has a similar interpretation and doesn’t see any conflict at all. Lastly, there was a confession of faith. In Matthew 16:16 Peter declares Jesus to be the Son of the living God.

It did not contradict his line of reasoning because he was taking that line. I said that (his) line was simply denying what happened which seemed to be rather straight forward, “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.” Mt 16:18 (NIV)

A simple English, as NIV Bible says it – if you are talking to someone (Jesus speaking to Peter), it was not likely that Jesus said “Peter” but meant “rock” as something else in the same sentence. It has to refer to Peter and not something else (confession of faith).

Yes, agreed that “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” was some kind of a confession of faith albeit it came from “my Father in heaven”, not Peter himself. It thus also can be said that it is a divine declaration that Jesus was the Messiah.

 

[Rohzek]

I disagree with him but again it is just a personal take. Let’s look at the quote again:

I agree that Peter still has a long way to go alright and John 21 about feeding the sheep demonstrated that. If he was disputing that Jesus named him Peter in Mt 16, then this reason is quite irrelevant in my opinion. When would the name “Peter” really took effect if not at that point in time when Jesus said, “You are Peter”?

In any case the development in Peter’s character was gradual but decisively during the Pentecost as all the other apostles too.

I don’t think he is disputing the renaming of Peter at all. He says exactly the contrary. Note how he talks about Peter becoming strong in the future and not Peter becoming Peter in the future (#18) Again, I think it has a lot to do with how Radbertus conceives of participatory grace with God and what that entails when deriving strength from grace.

It did not contradict his line of reasoning because he was taking that line. I said that (his) line was simply denying what happened which seemed to be rather straight forward, “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.” Mt 16:18 (NIV)

A simple English, as NIV Bible says it – if you are talking to someone (Jesus speaking to Peter), it was not likely that Jesus said “Peter” but meant “rock” as something else in the same sentence. It has to refer to Peter and not something else (confession of faith).

Yes, agreed that “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God,” was some kind of a confession of faith albeit it came from “my Father in heaven”, not Peter himself. It thus also can be said that it is a divine declaration that Jesus was the Messiah.

Again, neither I nor Radbertus are disputing that Jesus used the name Peter. Radbertus, in fact, explicitly acknowledges this. He just recognizes it as bearing a significance that hasn’t been discussed here before. I understand that his views don’t fit with the previous views espoused here. That’s precisely why I brought up the interpretation of this great saint (among others) in order to have a more lively discussion of the topic. And his views are not stand-alone in the historical context of which he lived.

 

[Tomyris]

Here’s John 2:40-42 (NIV)

40 Andrew, Simon Peter’s brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. 41 The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, “We have found the Messiah” (that is, the Christ). 42 And he brought him to Jesus.
Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peterg]).

This was BEFORE the Matthew passage. What can we draw from that? Simon already knew that Jesus would call him Peter. To say that the Matthew passage implies some sort of building the kingdom of God on Simon is pushing it. It wasn’t any Big Thing for Jesus to call him Peter. He’d been doing it for a while. No imputation of apostolic supremacy there.

In the Old Testament there is only one Rock, and that Rock was God. Simon would not have understood Jesus as saying that he, Simon, was the rock. That would have been silly at best, which Jesus was not, and blasphemous at worst, which Jesus was not.

Those found of weaving Isaiah 22 into this context never deal with verse 25 - if you rely on this “peg”, you will fall. We are to rely on God not man. Never on man. Never, ever on Simon Peter the man. That would have been clear to the hearers of the Matthew passage.

 

[Reuben_J]

I don’t think he is disputing the renaming of Peter at all. He says exactly the contrary. Note how he talks about Peter becoming strong in the future and not Peter becoming Peter in the future (#18) Again, I think it has a lot to do with how Radbertus conceives of participatory grace with God and what that entails when deriving strength from grace.

Again, neither I nor Radbertus are disputing that Jesus used the name Peter. Radbertus, in fact, explicitly acknowledges this.

Thanks. Then I am fine with that. Sorry to have rehashed this. It is my problem then. I did not join the discussion from the beginning.

Rohzek:

He just recognizes it as bearing a significance that hasn’t been discussed here before. I understand that his views don’t fit with the previous views espoused here. That’s precisely why I brought up the interpretation of this great saint (among others) in order to have a more lively discussion of the topic. And his views are not stand-alone in the historical context of which he lived.

What did he write that was new to the understanding of Simon being renamed ‘Peter’ (rock), if you do not mind?

 

[Reuben_J]

Here’s John 2:40-42 (NIV)

This was BEFORE the Matthew passage. What can we draw from that? Simon already knew that Jesus would call him Peter. To say that the Matthew passage implies some sort of building the kingdom of God on Simon is pushing it. It wasn’t any Big Thing for Jesus to call him Peter. He’d been doing it for a while. No imputation of apostolic supremacy there.

In the Old Testament there is only one Rock, and that Rock was God. Simon would not have understood Jesus as saying that he, Simon, was the rock. That would have been silly at best, which Jesus was not, and blasphemous at worst, which Jesus was not.

Those found of weaving Isaiah 22 into this context never deal with verse 25 - if you rely on this “peg”, you will fall. We are to rely on God not man. Never on man. Never, ever on Simon Peter the man. That would have been clear to the hearers of the Matthew passage.

In Mt 16, Jesus did not say “You shall be called Peter”, he said “You are Peter”.

Mt 16 did not imply anything, it was simply mentioned, “… on this rock I will build my Church,” spoken on the same sentence immediately after he said “You are Peter”.

It got to be about simple understanding of the Bible. The Catholic basic way of understanding it would be to understand first of all the literal meaning, then the figurative meaning. It has to be in that order and more so for the narrative genre of Mathew.

Like I said, saying the ‘rock’ being confession of faith of Peter in that sentence (v 18), is a misunderstanding of it. It may be right, perhaps as a further reflection, but not in that sentence. It was not how language is being used.

The Bible is rather a straight forward book. It does not hide its message or camouflages it or have hidden meaning except perhaps for the apocalyptic genre.

Building the Church on Peter. Why not? If one understands correctly, not impute upon it what it is not, then building it on this apostle was actually done and was a perfect fit. He was the first Pope of Jesus’ Church.

It is never the understanding of the Church that Peter was the Rock as Jesus is. Who said that anyway?

 

[Rohzek]

Thanks. Then I am fine with that. Sorry to have rehashed this. It is my problem then. I did not join the discussion from the beginning.

What did he write that was new to the understanding of Simon being renamed ‘Peter’ (rock), if you do not mind?

Well he explicitly states that the rock upon which the Church was founded was the confession of faith and not Peter. So while it doesn’t disprove Papal supremacy, it does not support it either.

 

[prodromos]

Like I said, saying the ‘rock’ being confession of faith of Peter in that sentence (v 18), is a misunderstanding of it. It may be right, perhaps as a further reflection, but not in that sentence. It was not how language is being used.

Yet that is the majority view of the Fathers is it not?

 

[Gorgias]

The purpose of this thread was to speak of scriptural terms and how they were interpreted or intended back during scriptural times. A restriction was placed upon the Church Fathers with a few exceptions by the OP. We already have posted here a large number of quotes and translations from various saints, Fathers, monks, etc. from Late Antiquity, the Early Medieval Ages, and the High Middle Ages

But here’s the thing: what difference do the citations from these later times make? After all, by that point in time, there was already (according to Catholic apologetics (which, for some reason, is ‘banned’ (LOL!) in this thread?) and endorsed by the magisterium) the interpretation of the primacy of Peter. These writers aren’t the magisterium, so how can we look at them as if they were? More to the point, we know that some of them erred on other counts, too (e.g., Paschasius locates the ‘image of God’ in physical bodies, Rupert’s Eucharistic theology does not jive with transubstantiation).

So, what import do we impute to these non-magisterial writers? Can we really point to them and attempt to assert that their views represent the mainstream of Christian thought?

My argument in short is that what others have previously claimed to be a traditional and correct interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 is nothing but a later innovation.

That doesn’t seem to make sense: you’re claiming that, only after Orthodoxy and Catholicism split, was there the later assertion of Petrine supremacy? That these writers (from ca 800-1200 AD) preceded the definition as the Church holds it today? If that were the case, then why the Orthodox/Catholic split? If there were no definition already in place, then why split over the argument?

I figured that this would be a more accessible avenue for finding out the meaning of “petram” than restricting it solely to Greek, which only an extreme few here have a firm grammatical understanding of.

I would think that the discussion would center on ταύτῃ rather than on πέτρᾳ, since after all, the question is which rock…!

 

[Gorgias]

Here’s John 2:40-42 (NIV)

This was BEFORE the Matthew passage.

What do you mean by saying that John 1 (not 2 ) was ‘before’ Matthew 16? The Gospels can’t be synchronized in that way – it’s difficult enough a task to try that with the synoptics, let alone one of them with the Fourth Gospel!

In the Old Testament there is only one Rock, and that Rock was God.

Jesus isn’t saying that Peter replaces God – He’s saying that He’s doing something new (i.e., creating a Church) and that Church will have Peter as its foundation.

 

[Rohzek]

But here’s the thing: what difference do the citations from these later times make? After all, by that point in time, there was already (according to Catholic apologetics (which, for some reason, is ‘banned’ (LOL!) in this thread?) and endorsed by the magisterium) the interpretation of the primacy of Peter. These writers aren’t the magisterium, so how can we look at them as if they were? More to the point, we know that some of them erred on other counts, too (e.g., Paschasius locates the ‘image of God’ in physical bodies, Rupert’s Eucharistic theology does not jive with transubstantiation).

Pope Sylvester II found nothing wrong with Paschasius’ views with regards to transubstantiation. Any concern is nothing more than a misreading that focuses on a few lines of his and not his work in its entirety. He is a well-revered saint in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Rupert wasn’t correct on everything. But if you mean to declare that he was therefore out of step on every single theological issue, you would be mistaken; especially this one which jives very closely with the interpretations of Saint Bruno of Segni (#19), Saint Hrabanus Maurus (#19 and #38), and of course Saint Paschasius Radbertus (#18).

As for Catholic apologetics, they aren’t banned in this thread. All the OP is asking for is that if any Catholic wants to use Church Fathers or saints to advance their view of Matthew 16, then they should do serious research on the matter rather than copy and pasting one or two lines that they ripped from a blog somewhere. See the Patrologia Latina (PL: See Wiki Index of Authors), which has a lot of these texts is freely available on Google Books. There is also the Monumenta Germaniae Historica, which is more modern but requires knowledge of German to navigate in addition to Latin to read. These are excellent resources for those who know Latin. Alternatively, the out-dated Catholic Encyclopedia Online holds a ton of English translations (decent but not perfect) of Catholic and Orthodox saints and Fathers. For those who lack Latin or German, I would recommend that they use the CE translations, which are freely available as are the other resources. If we’re going to have a serious discussion and debate, then we should use these resources because they provide original and primary historical documents. Furthermore, we should quote them and read them in their full appropriate contexts. That’s all that was asked of by the OP.

So, what import do we impute to these non-magisterial writers? Can we really point to them and attempt to assert that their views represent the mainstream of Christian thought?

On what basis do you think that non-magisterial writers are not mainstream? The Latin Church was always more than the Roman Church. The history of Western Christendom is not just the history of the Church of Rome. That’s something Peter Brown quite convincingly displayed, when he wrote The Rise of Western Christendom. Not to mention the fact that almost every major theological issue and controversy during the Early Middle Ages in Western Europe was settled not by the pope, but by the Frankish Church (such as Predestination, Adoptionism, and even Iconoclasm - because the majority of the West didn’t accept II Nicaea until long afterwards; they held their own councils on the issue). It is also telling that the standardization of the Latin Vulgate was carried out by the Frankish Church, not the Church of Rome. We have to look wider, otherwise we miss out on serious historical issues as well as a treasure trove of writings left by venerable men.

That doesn’t seem to make sense: you’re claiming that, only after Orthodoxy and Catholicism split, was there the later assertion of Petrine supremacy? That these writers (from ca 800-1200 AD) preceded the definition as the Church holds it today? If that were the case, then why the Orthodox/Catholic split? If there were no definition already in place, then why split over the argument?

No, I am claiming that this rock business that everyone keeps talking about is a later historical innovation that is probably post-schism. As for the roots of the split, they can be found in beginning in the 9th century with Pope Nicholas I. However, keep in mind that the Petrine Primacy that Nicholas advocated was significantly different from the Petrine primacy that Pope Gregory VII advocated. These other topics are well-worth discussing, but for another thread, should anyone care to start it. (I’m stressing this not for you, but for everyone else who might like to change topics). It involves a lot of non-exegetical discussion, which would bring us away from the matters involving the scriptures of both Matthew and Luke.

In a future post, I will add one other pre-800 author since it seems that you would like for that to happen. This would bring up the tally of authors I have cited from before c. 800 to two, the first of which was Jerome.

 

[Rohzek]

Addendum 2 to Series of 3.

Here is another Latin Father and source I would like to add to the dossier of our discussion. For my previous submissions, see the following posts: #17, #18, #19, and #38.

7.* Confessionis merces.*[Col.1009C] —Et dignum plane confessio Petri praemium consecuta est, quia Dei filium [Col.1010A] in homine vidisset. Beatus hic est, qui ultra humanos oculos et intendisse et vidisse laudatus est: non id quod ex carne et sanguine erat contuens, sed Dei filium coelestis patris revelatione conspiciens; dignusque judicatus, qui quod in Christo Dei esset, primus agnosceret. O in nuncupatione novi nominis felix Ecclesiae fundamentum, dignaque aedificatione illius petra, quae infernas leges, et tartari portas, et omnia mortis claustra dissolveret! O beatus coeli janitor, cujus arbitrio claves aeterni aditus traduntur, cujus terrestre judicium praejudicata auctoritas sit in coelo: ut quae in terris aut ligata sint aut soluta, statuti ejusdem conditionem obtineant et in coelo.

The Reward of Confession. And plainly the worthy confession of Peter is followed with a favor, because he had seen (subjunctive case) the Son of God in man. Blessed is he, who beyond human eyes is praised to have been thought of and seen: he was not believing due to the flesh and blood, but by seeing the revelation of the Son of God from the heavenly Father; and worthy and just, was he such that in Christ of God he was the first to recognize. Oh! By appellation of a new name the fruitful foundation of the Church, worthy and built is the rock of that, [the rock] which (feminine) would destroy those flames, the gates of Hell, and all of the enclosed dead that you behold. O blessed door-keeper of heaven, by whose eternal will had the keys been given to the attacked (plural fourth declension), whose earthly judgment shall be the first authorized judgment in heaven: so that those on the earth and land shall be saved, and they shall obtain the condition of the same uprightness in Heaven.

Hilary of Poitiers’ IN EVANGELIUM MATTHAEI COMMENTARIUS PL 9: 1009C - 1010A