The Papacy and Greek Language

[Rohzek]

Part 3 of 3

Hinc est illud quod huic Simoni Petro dixit: «Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam (Matth. XVI).» Super petram fidei, quam confessus est Petrus, Ecclesiam suam aedificavit, eamque regendam illi, caeterisque apostolis eorumque similibus, commisit.

Upon the rock of faith, which Peter confessed, he built his Church, which for the sake of being guided by them, and the rest of the apostles and of those similar, he entrusted.

Rupert of Deutz’ IN OPUS DE GLORIA ET HONORE FILII HOMINIS SUPER MATTHAEUM PL 168: 1385A

Et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Tu dicis, et verum dicis, quia ego sum Christus Filius Dei vivi: [Col.0213B] et ego dico tibi, quia tu es Petrus, fide fortis, et doctrina stabilis. Nisi enim in hoc nomine fortitudinem et stabilitatem Christus intellexisset, non ea quae sequuntur protinus addidisset, dicens; et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Si Petrum non intelligis, petram respice: petra autem erat Christus. Sic igitur a petra Petrus, sicut a Christo Christianus. Videamus itaque quid sit et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam. Super hanc petram, quam tu modo in fidei fundamentum posuisti; super hanc fidem, quam tu modo docuisti, dicens: Tu es Christus, Filius Dei vivi; super hanc petram et super hanc fidem aedificabo Ecclesiam meam.

You say, and you speak truth, because I am the Christ, Son of the living God: and I speak to you, because you are Peter, strong in faith, and in stable doctrine. In fact, unless in this name of fortitude and stability Christ would have had understood, not by it [the rock/petram] which onward it is followed to have had been joined, saying: and upon this rock I will build my Church. If you do not understand Peter, [then] look at the rock: but the rock is Christ. Yes, therefore, Peter [is] from the rock, just as a Christian [is] from Christ. Accordingly we may see what shall be and upon this rock I will build my Church. Upon this rock, which only you have laid in the foundation of faith; upon this faith, which only you have taught, saying: You are Christ, Son of the living God; upon this rock and upon this faith I will build my Church.

Et tibi dabo claves regni coelorum. Hoc enim quod principaliter Petro [Col.0214B] dicitur, caeteris quoque apostolis dictum esse intelligi debet.

In fact, this is principally said to Peter, and it ought to be understood as being said to the rest of the apostles.

Bruno of Segni’s COMMENTARIA IN MATTHAEUM PL 165: 0212A - 0213B; 0214A - 0214B

Et dabo tibi claves regni coelorum. Qui regem coelorum majori prae caeteris devotione confessus est, merito prae caeteris ipse collatis clavibus regni coelestis donatus est, ut constaret omnibus, quia absque ea confessione, ac fide, regnum coelorum nullus potest intrare. Claves autem regni coelorum ipsam discernendi scientiam potentiamque nominat, qua dignos recipere in regnum, indignos secludere deberet a regno.

He who has confessed the Kingdom of Heaven well before with heavenly devotion, merits before Heaven itself the gifted keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, so that it may correspond with all, because it is without this confession, and faith, that no one is able to enter the Kingdom of Heaven. However, the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven themselves are for discerning the powerful knowledge that he names, by which the worthy receive in the Kingdom, and the unworthy ought to be separated from the Kingdom.

Hrabanus Maurus’ COMMENTARIORUM IN MATTHAEUM LIBRI OCTO PL 107: 0992A

Final notes, as a whole I think we find here a much more complex understanding of the Rock, and that it had more to do with what Peter believed and symbolized as a person professing a belief than Peter himself. As for the Keys, well I think it is self-explanatory from what you can read.

At any rate, let us please add these texts to our discussion and debate the meaning of them.

 

[Tomyris]

I think we can agree that the bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor , is a servant of God , and has jurisdiction in the Latin / Roman Catholic Church , but does he have jurisdiction elsewhere, I’d have to say no , anyway this will be interesting, be considerate of others in the thread .

Ah, no. Maybe Lutherans, Catholics and Orthodox can agree on this, but not the Reformed.

Most if not everything on this thread so far has been discussed NUMEROUS times on CAF.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

I’m familiar with these interpretation and they have a lot of power and persuasion to them. I’ve heard the interpretation of the rock being Peter’s confession of faith from Protestants and it always gives me pause. Couldn’t there be room for both interpretations? Christ refers to Peter and his confession?

I notice you brought in a Church Father–Jerome. I banned the fathers from discussion but the Orthodox have a good grasp of the Church Fathers’ writings so I’ll make an exception for them. It’s Catholics I’m weary of because I get the sense that they type “Church Fathers and the Papacy” into google and click on the first link. Then they copy and paste without doing any scholarship. It’s sad to say, but that’s often how it works out. That being said, if there are any Catholics who have scholarly knowledge about what any of the Fathers wrote concerning Matt. 16, please share. Oh, and don’t use Jurgen’s awful book “the faith of the early Fathers” which is comprised of nothing more than cherry picked excerpts"

 

[Tomyris]

I’m familiar with these interpretation and they have a lot of power and persuasion to them. I’ve heard the interpretation of the rock being Peter’s confession of faith from Protestants and it always gives me pause. Couldn’t there be room for both interpretations? Christ refers to Peter and his confession?

I notice you brought in a Church Father–Jerome. I banned the fathers from discussion but the Orthodox have a good grasp of the Church Fathers’ writings so I’ll make an exception for them. It’s Catholics I’m weary of because I get the sense that they type “Church Fathers and the Papacy” into google and click on the first link. Then they copy and paste without doing any scholarship. It’s sad to say, but that’s often how it works out. That being said, if there are any Catholics who have scholarly knowledge about what any of the Fathers wrote concerning Matt. 16, please share. Oh, and don’t use Jurgen’s awful book “the faith of the early Fathers” which is comprised of nothing more than cherry picked excerpts"

Catholic faith by definition is what is believed by all the church everywhere by everyone. Wait, this has been changed: it is what the Catholic Church SAYS has been believed by all the church everywhere by everyone. So when we find a bare majority (if that) of the church fathers say Simon Peter is the Rock and nothing else is, that means a sizable minority disagreed with this statement. For Augustine, for example, it was faith, not the man. Others maintain that Peter was a type of all Christians. You cannot maintain that the whole church has always maintained that the ONLY interpretation ever accepted was that Simon Peter is the Rock. History says otherwise.

 

[Rohzek]

I’m familiar with these interpretation and they have a lot of power and persuasion to them. I’ve heard the interpretation of the rock being Peter’s confession of faith from Protestants and it always gives me pause. Couldn’t there be room for both interpretations? Christ refers to Peter and his confession?

I notice you brought in a Church Father–Jerome. I banned the fathers from discussion but the Orthodox have a good grasp of the Church Fathers’ writings so I’ll make an exception for them. It’s Catholics I’m weary of because I get the sense that they type “Church Fathers and the Papacy” into google and click on the first link. Then they copy and paste without doing any scholarship. It’s sad to say, but that’s often how it works out. That being said, if there are any Catholics who have scholarly knowledge about what any of the Fathers wrote concerning Matt. 16, please share. Oh, and don’t use Jurgen’s awful book “the faith of the early Fathers” which is comprised of nothing more than cherry picked excerpts"

Sorry, I forgot about the part of the Fathers. I won’t quote any more of them, although it was only a few lines of Bede and Jerome.

As for your first point, Bruno of Segni’s interpretation might be of interest to you in particular.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Catholic faith by definition is what is believed by all the church everywhere by everyone. Wait, this has been changed: it is what the Catholic Church SAYS has been believed by all the church everywhere by everyone. So when we find a bare majority (if that) of the church fathers say Simon Peter is the Rock and nothing else is, that means a sizable minority disagreed with this statement. For Augustine, for example, it was faith, not the man. Others maintain that Peter was a type of all Christians. You cannot maintain that the whole church has always maintained that the ONLY interpretation ever accepted was that Simon Peter is the Rock. History says otherwise.

Most Catholics haven’t even read St. Augustine’s “City of God”. It is sad that they claim they have the “faith handed down from the Fathers” when don’t even have a basic working knowledge of the most well-known western Father. Oh well, I’m waiting for one to prove me wrong. Sigh, if only Pope John Paul II, Cardinal Ratzinger, or Cardinal John Henry Newman could post on this thread. Instead, we get Joe-Catholic who knows a few canned quotes…

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Sorry, I forgot about the part of the Fathers. I won’t quote any more of them, although it was only a few lines of Bede and Jerome.

As for your first point, Bruno of Segni’s interpretation might be of interest to you in particular.

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.

 

[Starwarsfan2]

John Chryostom ( Homily LIV : 13 ) And I say unto thee , Thou art Peter , and upon this rock I will build my Church , that is on the faith of his confession .

St. Augustine ( Homily X on John V 1-3) … Upon this faith , upon this that has been said , "thou art the Christ , the Son of the Living God " upon this rock satin He " I will build my Church "

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Origen

" Thou art the Christ , the Son of the Living God " If anyone says this to Him… He will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter , but as the spirit of Gospel teaches to everyone who becomes such as Peter was. For all bear the surname " rock " who are the imitators of Christ …

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Surely He is calling of pious faith and true confession a rock …
Theodoret ( Commentary on Canticle of Canticles 11. 14)

 

[Starwarsfan2]

…Thus our one immovable foundation , our one blissful rock of faith , is the confession from Peter, Thou art the Son of the Living God

Hilary of Poiters ( On the Trinity Book VI 36,37; Book II ,23)

 

[prodromos]

Dude, you are doing exactly what most Catholic apologists do with quotes from the Fathers. It isn’t productive.

 

[Augustine3]

Apart from the usage of Greek in scripture, perhaps we should also consider the sovereignty of the Bishop of Rome stemming from the fact that Rome is a double See founded by saints Peter and Paul.

 

[myway]

Ambrose called Peter the ideal Faithful Servant in (Luke 12:35-40) who feeds the sheep of the household.

 

[Gorgias]

Only according to Koines Greek does Petros mean small pebble. Koines Greek is not the same Greek in the oldest Greek Bible called the Septuagint.

Actually, the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek.

Petros appears 162 times in the New Testament. When the New Testament was written in Greek Petra became Petros.

Actually, ‘Petros’ is a proper name (in English, it’s the name ‘Peter’). As a proper name, it appears 156 times in the NT.

Petra is in the New Testament 16 times. They changed the name because Petra was feminine.

Petra is not a proper name; it’s a general noun. It means ‘rock’. In this form, it appears 15 times.

 

[Rohzek]

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; most being well-cited too. I realize that this topic can become quite broad in terms of who founded what see, etc., but we should stick with how particular scriptures have historically been interpreted, preferably before the Reformation or the Fourth Crusade. Otherwise, I don’t think this thread will be conducive to our inquiries.

Not to sound selfish or anything, but I’d appreciate some thoughts on the texts I provided in posts 17-19 on this very thread. They specifically involve the scripture Matthew 16: 18-19 and its historical interpretation and reception. This was the first scriptural topic that had been broached in this thread and it is far from exhausted, so I do not think we should leave it behind for non-scriptural topics concerning the papacy just yet. 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.

 

[Gorgias]

Also note that these come from the Patrologia Latina (PL).

Metaphorically it is said: Upon this rock, that is, the Savior, which you have confessed, the Church shall be built, who had given a participation of his name to the sincere confessor [Peter].

• Bede’s IN MATTHAEI EVANGELIUM EXPOSITIO PL 92: 0078D - 0079A

Actually, although the PL attributed this to Bede, scholars now view the Matthaei Evangelium Expositio to have been written by Pseudo Bede. Regardless, this was written far later than the time at which the primacy of Peter had been asserted by the Church (western or otherwise)…

 

[myway]

Actually, the Septuagint was written in Koine Greek.

Actually, ‘Petros’ is a proper name (in English, it’s the name ‘Peter’). As a proper name, it appears 156 times in the NT.

Petra is not a proper name; it’s a general noun. It means ‘rock’. In this form, it appears 15 times.

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

I don’t understand everything else your saying.

This is where I got my information:catholicnick.blogspot.com/2013/04/why-protestant-petrospetra-argument-is.html

 

[Rohzek]

Actually, although the PL attributed this to Bede, scholars now view the Matthaei Evangelium Expositio to have been written by Pseudo Bede. Regardless, this was written far later than the time at which the primacy of Peter had been asserted by the Church (western or otherwise)…

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. Some monk took the trouble to write it after all. 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. I have tried to use the Latin writings by those before the Fourth Crusade, after which point there would be too little of common ground between us Orthodox or Catholics on the particular text. Whatever the primacy of Peter means exactly, these later texts are just as important in understanding it and its historical reception and interpretation.

 

[Rohzek]

Post Addendum to Series of 3.

I want to add one more piece to my text from Hrabanus Maurus (see original post here: #19):

*Et quodcunque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum et in coelis, et quodcunque solveris super terram, erit solutum et in coelis. *Quae solvendi ac ligandi potestas, quamvis soli Petro data videatur a Domino, absque [Col.0992B] ulla tamen dubietate noscendum est quod et caeteris apostolis datur, ipso teste, qui post passionis, resurrectionisque suae triumphum apparens, eis insufflavit et dixit omnibus: Accipite Spiritum sanctum; quorum remiseritis peccata, remittentur eis, et quorum retinueritis, retenta sunt (Joan. XX). Nec non etiam nunc in episcopis ac presbyteris omnibus Ecclesiae officium idem committitur, ut videlicet agnitis peccantium causis, quoscunque humiles ac vere poenitentes aspexerit, hos jam a timore perpetuae mortis miserans absolvat; quos vero in peccatis quae egerint persistere cognoverit, illos perennibus suppliciis obligandos insinuet. Omni igitur electorum Ecclesiae, ut diximus, juxta modum culparum vel poenitentiae, ligandi ac solvendi datur auctoritas.

What power is for unbinding and for binding, as you will it may be seen as given only to Peter by the Lord, but without any doubt it is known that it is given to the rest of the apostles, witness yourself, he who after his passion and resurrection appearing to them in triumph breathed and said to all: Receive the Holy Spirit; the sins of all that you remit, they are remitted, and of all that you retain, they are retained (John 20). In fact, also presently in the bishops and presbyters is the same office committed to the everyone of the Church, so that clearly by the recognized causes of sins, whatever humble and true penitents he may have seen, he absolves them now from lamenting fear of perpetual death; truly he must have known that they led those in sin to continue steadfastly. He may recommend those towards unceasing supplication for obligation. Therefore, so that we have said, near an extent of culpability and of penance, the authority for binding and loosing is given to all of the elect of the Church.

Hrabanus Maurus’ COMMENTARIORUM IN MATTHAEUM LIBRI OCTO PL 107: 0992A - 0992B