The Papacy and Greek Language

[Rohzek]

No bites from other peoples? Then again, it is a lot of reading for newcomers to the thread. So I’ll summarize what I’ve asserted, just in case there might be some others out there who want to discuss, but are daunted by the mass info. I’ve provided a lot of primary evidence of Church Fathers, saints, and Latin religious writers who considered the Rock of Matthew 16 to be the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and that its application to Peter to only be metaphorical. In addition, they considered the keys to be given to not to just Peter but to at least all of the apostles. I am making this argument because I believe that the Rock argument presented by many Catholics today is rooted in the Reformation, so it is thus a later historical innovation. I would think that these claims would garner more discussion to say the least, especially when a lot of this evidence is new to these forums because English translations remain elusive or are lacking. I would also like further discussion because I went through the trouble of researching and translating these texts, as selfish as that might sound.

Current historical quotes I have pulled from include: pseudo-Bede, Saint Jerome, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Saint Paschasius Radbertus, Dungal of Bobbio, Rupert of Deutz, Saint Bruno of Segni, and Saint Hrabanus Maurus.

For anyone wanting to bring in their own quotes, please follow the OP’s rules that he has set for this thread. That is to say, provide detailed context and cite your sources, and don’t just copy-paste from a blog: OP’s Rules.

 

[Vico]

No bites from other peoples? Then again, it is a lot of reading for newcomers to the thread. So I’ll summarize what I’ve asserted, just in case there might be some others out there who want to discuss, but are daunted by the mass info. I’ve provided a lot of primary evidence of Church Fathers, saints, and Latin religious writers who considered the Rock of Matthew 16 to be the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and that its application to Peter to only be metaphorical. In addition, they considered the keys to be given to not to just Peter but to at least all of the apostles. I am making this argument because I believe that the Rock argument presented by many Catholics today is rooted in the Reformation, so it is thus a later historical innovation. I would think that these claims would garner more discussion to say the least, especially when a lot of this evidence is new to these forums because English translations remain elusive or are lacking. I would also like further discussion because I went through the trouble of researching and translating these texts, as selfish as that might sound.

Current historical quotes I have pulled from include: pseudo-Bede, Saint Jerome, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Saint Paschasius Radbertus, Dungal of Bobbio, Rupert of Deutz, Saint Bruno of Segni, and Saint Hrabanus Maurus.

For anyone wanting to bring in their own quotes, please follow the OP’s rules that he has set for this thread. That is to say, provide detailed context and cite your sources, and don’t just copy-paste from a blog: OP’s Rules.

Well, we know that it is not rooted in the Reformation.

We have ST. BONIFACE I, 418-422 on The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, from the Letter, “Manes beatum,” to Rufus and the other Bishops through out Macedonia, etc., March 11, 422 (Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma):

5000 The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him by reason of the Lord’s statement; for he knows on the testimony of the Gospel [Matt. 16:18] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn my mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrees of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. “To you,” He said, “I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door–keeper. He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” [Matt. 11:29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, be “meek and humble of heart” [Matt. 11:29]. lest as a contumacious disciple of him, whose he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers. . . .

We have from the council of Lyons II (1274 A.D.) The Profession of Faith of Michael Paleologus, Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma:

466 Also this same holy Roman Church holds the highest and complete primacy and spiritual power over the universal Catholic Church which she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff. And just as to defend the truth of Faith she is held before all other things, so if any questions shall arise regarding faith they ought to be defined by her judgment. And to her anyone burdened with affairs pertaining to the ecclesiastical world can appeal; and in all cases looking forward to an ecclesiastical examination, recourse can be had to her judgment, and all churches are subject to her; their prelates give obedience and reverence to her. In her, moreover, such a plentitude of power rests that she receives the other churches to a share of her solicitude, of which many patriarchal churches the same Roman Church has honored in a special way by different privileges-its own prerogative always being observed and preserved both in general Councils and in other places.

patristica.net/denzinger/

 

[badnewsbarrett]

No bites from other peoples? Then again, it is a lot of reading for newcomers to the thread. So I’ll summarize what I’ve asserted, just in case there might be some others out there who want to discuss, but are daunted by the mass info. I’ve provided a lot of primary evidence of Church Fathers, saints, and Latin religious writers who considered the Rock of Matthew 16 to be the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and that its application to Peter to only be metaphorical. In addition, they considered the keys to be given to not to just Peter but to at least all of the apostles. I am making this argument because I believe that the Rock argument presented by many Catholics today is rooted in the Reformation, so it is thus a later historical innovation.

Since you are Orthodox and your attention is squarely on this thread, let me run something by you and see how you take it. I have a thought about something that might get to the heat of the meat, so to say.

On one hand, you have the Rock as the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and the keys, the authority to bind and loose, these are given to all the apostles. And on the other hand, you have Peter himself as the Rock, and a particular set of keys are given to him along with a unique authority to bind and loose.

And the reason, the outcome for the things on each of these hands, is as follows. On one hand, you have a situation where the Gospel, the basic confession of faith, the Orthodox communion as a whole must strive for unity and not fall into heresy. Any apostle or any of his successors could potentially fall into heresy and/or schism, and they must not do this…but they could, and it would be a betrayal of the foundation of the Church. Which is not Peter himself or his office, but Christ, or the Truth, or his declaration thereof or something like that. But then on the other hand, every apostle except one- Peter- could perhaps fall into heresy, but he (along with all his successors, for all eternity) can never fall into heresy because he is Rock, and he has Keys, and everyone answers to him while he answers to no one. You might as well call him Martin Luther, except he is justified in thinking this of himself as Jesus just told him to think all those things.

Is that pretty close to being the reason why all of this really matters?

And just a quick clarifying question- to the best of your knowledge, does Eastern Orthodoxy (in any actual, official capacity) regard Rome as being mired in heresy at this point in time? If so, I’m sure it would relate to the outcome of this whole discussion in one way or another.

 

[Jon_Mallory]

Since you are Orthodox and your attention is squarely on this thread, let me run something by you and see how you take it. I have a thought about something that might get to the heat of the meat, so to say.

On one hand, you have the Rock as the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and the keys, the authority to bind and loose, these are given to all the apostles. And on the other hand, you have Peter himself as the Rock, and a particular set of keys are given to him along with a unique authority to bind and loose.

And the reason, the outcome for the things on each of these hands, is as follows. On one hand, you have a situation where the Gospel, the basic confession of faith, the Orthodox communion as a whole must strive for unity and not fall into heresy. Any apostle or any of his successors could potentially fall into heresy and/or schism, and they must not do this…but they could, and it would be a betrayal of the foundation of the Church. Which is not Peter himself or his office, but Christ, or the Truth, or his declaration thereof or something like that. But then on the other hand, every apostle except one- Peter- could perhaps fall into heresy, but he (along with all his successors, for all eternity) can never fall into heresy because he is Rock, and he has Keys, and everyone answers to him while he answers to no one. You might as well call him Martin Luther, except he is justified in thinking this of himself as Jesus just told him to think all those things.

Is that pretty close to being the reason why all of this really matters?

And just a quick clarifying question- to the best of your knowledge, does Eastern Orthodoxy (in any actual, official capacity) regard Rome as being mired in heresy at this point in time? If so, I’m sure it would relate to the outcome of this whole discussion in one way or another.

Since there is no official spokesperson for the whole Orthodox Church in the same way that there is for the Roman Catholic Church, I think that’s a hard question to answer. A lot of their priests/bishops seem to think so. Just look up Father Damick’s podcast, “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” and click on the one about Roman Catholicism and you’ll find your answer. I may be wrong but I think he represent mainstream Orthodoxy in America.
I will now ban myself for getting off-topic on my own thread. Oh, Rohzek clarified this but I think I need to emphasize the point that Roman Catholics can use past Popes and Church Fathers to make their case so long as they do it an exegetical fashion. What I don't look favorably upon is rattling off quotes from the Fathers in bullet point fashion like you're shooting a machine gun. Posting quotes from the Fathers without commentary is dangerous and stupid.

 

[Rohzek]

Well, we know that it is not rooted in the Reformation.

We have ST. BONIFACE I, 418-422 on The Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, from the Letter, “Manes beatum,” to Rufus and the other Bishops through out Macedonia, etc., March 11, 422 (Denzinger Sources of Catholic Dogma):

5000 The watchful care over the universal Church confided to Peter abides with him by reason of the Lord’s statement; for he knows on the testimony of the Gospel [Matt. 16:18] that the Church was founded on him. His office can never be free from cares, since it is certain that all things depend on his deliberation. These considerations turn my mind to the regions of the Orient, which we behold in a way with genuine solicitude. Far be it from the priests of the Lord, that anyone of them fall into the offense of making the decrees of our elders foreign to him, by attempting something in the way of a novel and unlawful usurpation, realizing that he thus makes him a rival, in whom our Christ has placed the highest power of the priesthood, and whoever rises to reproach him cannot be an inhabitant of the heavenly regions. “To you,” He said, “I shall give the keys of the kingdom of heaven” [Matt. 16:19] into which no one shall enter without the favor of the door–keeper. He said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church” [Matt. 11:29]. Whoever, therefore, desires before God to be judged worthy of the dignity of the priesthood, since one reaches God with the support of Peter, on whom, as we have said above, it is certain that the Church was founded, be “meek and humble of heart” [Matt. 11:29]. lest as a contumacious disciple of him, whose he has imitated, he undergo the punishment of the teachers. . . .

The second quote you offered didn’t mention the rock. So I’m not sure what exactly to comment on.

As for this papal letter from Pope Boniface I, I think more context is in order. At this time, the papacy is attempting to prevent the removal of the Illyrian Church from his jurisdiction of authority, in which there was a movement to have it placed under the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople due to some disciplinary matters (this is pre-Chalcedon, so the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not exist yet). In short, this is much more of a legal case than it is a exegetical illumination by the pope on Matthew 16. Boniface is merely asserting his long-held legal rights of authority over the Illyrian Church. It is also difficult to see how this directly conflicts with Jerome’s understanding of Matthew 16, whereby he says:

Just as he himself gave the light to the apostles, so that the light of the world would be addressed, and the rest are chosen names by the Lord: and thus to Simon, who believed in Christ the Rock, it is imparted the name of Peter. But following the metaphor of the rock, rightly it is said to him: I will build my Church upon you.

See original post.

Judging by Boniface’s previous letter (Epistola XIV PL 20: 0777A -0779A) his line of thinking is mainly concerned with Rome’s primacy of honor declared at Nicaea; in his own words first in honor (honore principium).

Even if what Boniface said was intended as exegetical, which is highly unlikely, and that he intended Peter as the sole rock, etc., his position would be an extreme outlier in comparison with the previous sources that I have offered.

 

[Rohzek]

Since you are Orthodox and your attention is squarely on this thread, let me run something by you and see how you take it. I have a thought about something that might get to the heat of the meat, so to say.

On one hand, you have the Rock as the confession of faith and/or Christ himself, and the keys, the authority to bind and loose, these are given to all the apostles. And on the other hand, you have Peter himself as the Rock, and a particular set of keys are given to him along with a unique authority to bind and loose.

And the reason, the outcome for the things on each of these hands, is as follows. On one hand, you have a situation where the Gospel, the basic confession of faith, the Orthodox communion as a whole must strive for unity and not fall into heresy. Any apostle or any of his successors could potentially fall into heresy and/or schism, and they must not do this…but they could, and it would be a betrayal of the foundation of the Church. Which is not Peter himself or his office, but Christ, or the Truth, or his declaration thereof or something like that. But then on the other hand, every apostle except one- Peter- could perhaps fall into heresy, but he (along with all his successors, for all eternity) can never fall into heresy because he is Rock, and he has Keys, and everyone answers to him while he answers to no one. You might as well call him Martin Luther, except he is justified in thinking this of himself as Jesus just told him to think all those things.

Is that pretty close to being the reason why all of this really matters?

And just a quick clarifying question- to the best of your knowledge, does Eastern Orthodoxy (in any actual, official capacity) regard Rome as being mired in heresy at this point in time? If so, I’m sure it would relate to the outcome of this whole discussion in one way or another.

It’s the Orthodox position that Rome is in heresy, but there is significant debate and a wide variety of positions as to how much heresy it is in. That’s just the broad overview of Orthodox views.

As for the two sets of keys, on what basis would one conclude that there is more than one set of keys?

 

[Jon_Mallory]

It’s the Orthodox position that Rome is in heresy, but there is significant debate and a wide variety of positions as to how much heresy it is in. That’s just the broad overview of Orthodox views.

As for the two sets of keys, on what basis would one conclude that there is more than one set of keys?

What do you think of Pope Gelasius I?

 

[Vico]

The second quote you offered didn’t mention the rock. So I’m not sure what exactly to comment on.

As for this papal letter from Pope Boniface I, I think more context is in order. At this time, the papacy is attempting to prevent the removal of the Illyrian Church from his jurisdiction of authority, in which there was a movement to have it placed under the authority of the Archbishop of Constantinople due to some disciplinary matters (this is pre-Chalcedon, so the Patriarchate of Constantinople does not exist yet). In short, this is much more of a legal case than it is a exegetical illumination by the pope on Matthew 16. Boniface is merely asserting his long-held legal rights of authority over the Illyrian Church. It is also difficult to see how this directly conflicts with Jerome’s understanding of Matthew 16, whereby he says:

Judging by Boniface’s previous letter (Epistola XIV PL 20: 0777A -0779A) his line of thinking is mainly concerned with Rome’s primacy of honor declared at Nicaea; in his own words first in honor (honore principium).

Even if what Boniface said was intended as exegetical, which is highly unlikely, and that he intended Peter as the sole rock, etc., his position would be an extreme outlier in comparison with the previous sources that I have offered.

You opened the door to non “Rock” quotes with “In addition, they considered the keys to be given to not to just Peter but to at least all of the apostles.” The second quote from Lyons II, pertains to that, in this: “she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff.”

Regarding the first quote, the first principle of hermeneutics is the literal meaning of the text. The context of the Rock statement is personal, in that, after Peter identifies Christ as the Messiah: “Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.””

 

[Rohzek]

You opened the door to non “Rock” quotes with “In addition, they considered the keys to be given to not to just Peter but to at least all of the apostles.” The second quote from Lyons II, pertains to that, in this: “she truly and humbly recognizes herself to have received with fullness of power from the Lord Himself in Blessed Peter, the chief or head of the Apostles whose successor is the Roman Pontiff.”

Okay, but I’m not disputing the history of Petrine supremacy as something from the Reformation period. I’m disputing a specific scriptural interpretation of Matthew 16 as from the Reformation period. There is no scriptural quote that the second passage pulls from, at least not in the segment you quoted. So I’m not sure what I can say about it. The only post-schism commentary on Matthew that I can find really is from the Glossa ordinaria and Bernard of Clairvaux. Can anyone find Bernard’s opinion on the matter in English? I can potentially translate and add both the Glossa and the Bernard’s view if no one else winds up doing so.

Regarding the first quote, the first principle of hermeneutics is the literal meaning of the text. The context of the Rock statement is personal, in that, after Peter identifies Christ as the Messiah: “Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.””

If you want to use modern methods of hermeneutics, I won’t argue with you, primarily because I am not interested. These methods were discussed at the very beginning of the thread, and there have been countless threads devoted to this one methodological aspect of Matthew 16. The reason I joined this thread was to present alternatives that long dominated the historical interpretation before the advent of modern hermeneutics. So if you want to talk about modern hermeneutics, then we will be talking past one another.

Additionally, I am not disputing that the statement is personal. I am disputing, using the tradition of Catholic and Orthodox saints, that the verse has also a deeper meaning to it, while also functioning like a metaphor.

What do you think of Pope Gelasius I?

Pope Gelasius I came to power at a rather unfortunate time with the Acacian Schism and all. I really do sympathize with the man, but his situation was a lot more cruel for him and complicated than people have generally realized. I’m assuming you are more or less interested in what I have to say about his Epistola XII Ad Anastasium. It’s an interesting topic, and I don’t claim expertise on the matter, but I would be willing to discuss it in a different thread.

 

[Rohzek]

Addendum 3 to Series of 3.

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.

In this previous post I added a quote from Hilary. I have since revised my translation of it, which makes it a little more confusing and ambiguous imo. There are of course other quotes from Hilary that are accessible in English, unlike this one, which is why I went through the trouble of translating it. Those other quotes might help shed some light on this passage (See On the Trinity). However, I would rather let other people have the opportunity to do it and opine their own thoughts before I proffer an opinion. At any rate, here is the revision:

1. 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 delivered unto the entrances (fourth declension; accusative plural), 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

 

[Expatreprocedit]

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"

A book suggestion here: Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, AD 96-454 by E. Giles (Anglican, I think). Gives the larger context of all the usual proof-texts.

 

[Vico]

Okay, but I’m not disputing the history of Petrine supremacy as something from the Reformation period. I’m disputing a specific scriptural interpretation of Matthew 16 as from the Reformation period. There is no scriptural quote that the second passage pulls from, at least not in the segment you quoted. So I’m not sure what I can say about it. The only post-schism commentary on Matthew that I can find really is from the Glossa ordinaria and Bernard of Clairvaux. Can anyone find Bernard’s opinion on the matter in English? I can potentially translate and add both the Glossa and the Bernard’s view if no one else winds up doing so.

If you want to use modern methods of hermeneutics, I won’t argue with you, primarily because I am not interested. These methods were discussed at the very beginning of the thread, and there have been countless threads devoted to this one methodological aspect of Matthew 16. The reason I joined this thread was to present alternatives that long dominated the historical interpretation before the advent of modern hermeneutics. So if you want to talk about modern hermeneutics, then we will be talking past one another.

Additionally, I am not disputing that the statement is personal. I am disputing, using the tradition of Catholic and Orthodox saints, that the verse has also a deeper meaning to it, while also functioning like a metaphor…

The original posted wrote: “Now, the Orthodox argue that Catholics grossly misinterpret these words to mean something they can’t possibly mean.”

Now, your stated purpose for joining the thread is contrary to the original topic in that is not to show an impossibility of meaning. A deeper meaning metaphorical meaning is an implication in addition to another meaning.

 

[Rohzek]

The original posted wrote: “Now, the Orthodox argue that Catholics grossly misinterpret these words to mean something they can’t possibly mean.”

Now, your stated purpose for joining the thread is contrary to the original topic in that is not to show an impossibility of meaning. A deeper meaning metaphorical meaning is an implication in addition to another meaning.

Vico, I ask that you read the entire thread as it seems to me that you have not. The OP explicitly expanded the purview of this thread to include this very topic that I brought up; that is the historical record of interpretation for Matthew 16 is not favorable to the Catholic position: #13 and #15. If you want to discuss Matthew 16 without caring for its historical reception by the Church for the first 12 centuries, then that’s fine. Pseudo-Bede, Saint Jerome, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Saint Paschasius Radbertus, Dungal of Bobbio, Rupert of Deutz, Saint Bruno of Segni, and Saint Hrabanus Maurus all deeply conflict with your interpretation of Matthew 16. In general, they interpret the verses as applicable towards Peter, but also towards all of the apostles. They also understand the Rock as Peter’s confession or Christ, not exclusively Peter. For these respective historical viewpoints by Catholic and Orthodox saints, see the following posts: #17, #18, #19, #38, and #67. Now either you are interested in addressing the historical record or you’re not.

If you’re not interested, then feel free to address only the original topic of this thread, in which case this thread would have been dead long ago because for the following reasons: 1.) very few people here know Greek grammar. Literally the only person in this thread who seems to know Greek grammar is Wesrock. Such circumstances can’t possibly be conducive to a great discussion; and 2.) the hermeneutical arguments that you’ve posted have already been given on the first page of this thread. The latter are just repeats of former threads on this same topic unless Cavaradossi were to grace us with his Greek knowledge for a contrary position. Seeing as to how Cav had yet to comment, I proposed an alternative avenue of where to take the discussion, in which case the OP gave me his blessing and we’ve been discussing the expanded topic since the end of page 1 (so the vast majority of this thread).

 

[Vico]

Vico, I ask that you read the entire thread as it seems to me that you have not. The OP explicitly expanded the purview of this thread to include this very topic that I brought up; that is the historical record of interpretation for Matthew 16 is not favorable to the Catholic position: #13 and #15. If you want to discuss Matthew 16 without caring for its historical reception by the Church for the first 12 centuries, then that’s fine. Pseudo-Bede, Saint Jerome, Saint Hilary of Poitiers, Saint Paschasius Radbertus, Dungal of Bobbio, Rupert of Deutz, Saint Bruno of Segni, and Saint Hrabanus Maurus all deeply conflict with your interpretation of Matthew 16. In general, they interpret the verses as applicable towards Peter, but also towards all of the apostles. They also understand the Rock as Peter’s confession or Christ, not exclusively Peter. For these respective historical viewpoints by Catholic and Orthodox saints, see the following posts: #17, #18, #19, #38, and #67. Now either you are interested in addressing the historical record or you’re not.

If you’re not interested, then feel free to address only the original topic of this thread, in which case this thread would have been dead long ago because for the following reasons: 1.) very few people here know Greek grammar. Literally the only person in this thread who seems to know Greek grammar is Wesrock. Such circumstances can’t possibly be conducive to a great discussion; and 2.) the hermeneutical arguments that you’ve posted have already been given on the first page of this thread. The latter are just repeats of former threads on this same topic unless Cavaradossi were to grace us with his Greek knowledge for a contrary position. Seeing as to how Cav had yet to comment, I proposed an alternative avenue of where to take the discussion, in which case the OP gave me his blessing and we’ve been discussing the expanded topic since the end of page 1 (so the vast majority of this thread).

Yes, I’m aware, it was expanded to Latin sources and other texts besides the Rock. You did not address my comment with yours however. The point is that it you posts not show an impossibility.

 

[Rohzek]

Yes, I’m aware, it was expanded to Latin sources and other texts besides the Rock. You did not address my comment with yours however. The point is that it you posts not show an impossibility.

Oh but they do show an impossibility. Pseudo-Bede explicitly states that the Rock is the confession of faith and that the power of binding an loosing is given to all of the apostles.

Radbertus states that Peter’s confession was on behalf of every apostle and that it is the faith that is the rock and the faith which the gates of Hell will not prevail. Furthermore, Radbertus also says that the keys were given to all of the apostles and everyone of the Church.

Hrabanus Maurus also states explicitly that the keys were given to all of the faithful as well as the authority of binding and loosing.

Dungal of Bobbio also understands the keys and the powers of binding and loosing as being given to all of the apostles.

Rupert of Deutz too understands the Rock as pertaining to Peter’s confession of faith and that the Church is governed by the plurality of the faithful, not just from a singular office.

Bruno of Segni understood the rock as being the confession of faith and Christ and that the keys were given to all of the apostles.

As for Hilary, I will refrain from commenting at the moment until his statements from On the Trinity are presented.

I understand that Jerome’s comments are more open to interpretation, which I personally think has more to do with Peter becoming Christ-like due to his faith. However, the comments from those above clearly and directly oppose the Catholic position regarding Matthew 16. They did not understand it as pertaining to Petrine supremacy. For them it was always rather a matter of divine grace and personal salvation.

 

[Vico]

Oh but they do show an impossibility. Pseudo-Bede explicitly states that the Rock is the confession of faith and that the power of binding an loosing is given to all of the apostles.

Radbertus states that Peter’s confession was on behalf of every apostle and that it is the faith that is the rock and the faith which the gates of Hell will not prevail. Furthermore, Radbertus also says that the keys were given to all of the apostles and everyone of the Church.

Hrabanus Maurus also states explicitly that the keys were given to all of the faithful as well as the authority of binding and loosing.

Dungal of Bobbio also understands the keys and the powers of binding and loosing as being given to all of the apostles.

Rupert of Deutz too understands the Rock as pertaining to Peter’s confession of faith and that the Church is governed by the plurality of the faithful, not just from a singular office.

Bruno of Segni understood the rock as being the confession of faith and Christ and that the keys were given to all of the apostles.

As for Hilary, I will refrain from commenting at the moment until his statements from On the Trinity are presented.

I understand that Jerome’s comments are more open to interpretation, which I personally think has more to do with Peter becoming Christ-like due to his faith. However, the comments from those above clearly and directly oppose the Catholic position regarding Matthew 16. They did not understand it as pertaining to Petrine supremacy. For them it was always rather a matter of divine grace and personal salvation.

Ah, but the Catholic teaching is that there is infallibility based upon the Holy Spirit manifest in the Church with the bishops all in communion with one another, and that the Pontiff cannot teach faith and morals authoratatively over and against the entire Church.

 

[Rohzek]

Ah, but the Catholic teaching is that there is infallibility based upon the Holy Spirit manifest in the Church with the bishops all in communion with one another, and that the Pontiff cannot teach faith and morals authoratatively over and against the entire Church.

I’m not talking about infallibility. I am talking about issues of authority, in which case the average early medieval Christian clearly understood that Christ gave equal authority and powers to all of the apostles in accordance with their views on Matthew 16. There is no peculiar office of Peter that is deemed to have been established in the early Christian’s understanding of Matthew 16.

 

[benhur]

Petra is feminine. Petros is masculine. You can’t give Peter a feminine name in Greek.

Hi W,

Help me here. Agree you can’t call Peter feminine, but it seems you do just that when you postulate the second rock, petra feminine, refers to Peter. Jesus is called the feminine petra as found in 1Cor 10:4 ;

“and that rock (petra /female) was Christ.”

A bigger rock (petra) always give way/birth to smaller ones (petros), hence the female is bigger, gives birth to the smaller. Peter is a “chip off the old block”, so to speak.

Then there’s some who claim that Jesus was gesticulating while saying “You are Peter” points to Peter “And on THIS” points to self rock I will build my Church. But that just seems rather silly, especially as an assumption to make about a written document without clarification.

Then don’t make assumptions also as if “you are there”, as the ‘gesturing’ idea does, and bring up Aramaic linguistics (only having one word for/rock/stone-kepha) to justify papal position,as some do.

The Greek is the inspired writing. The Greek does slightly clarify somewhat by using two different words, per gender. It certainly does not use the same word twice, as in "Peter-Peter-petros-petros. It is Peter/petros then the second is petra. Maybe the Greek writer knows by oral tradition of the gesturing. It certainly does not contradict what is written. But I do not like to assume either.

ταύτῃ has some emphasis as this, or 'this one," the emphasis would be clearly on something being pointed out (in the text) which could only be Peter.

Well not “only.” As you may know, some suggest Christ is pointing to what just happened, divine illumination and confession of who Christ is. Certainly the Roman Empire tried to prevail against that, killed many brethren, to no avail.

But, some do say the reference is to Peter. Ok. After all, all the apostles are our foundation, all:

“built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.”

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.”

But to get infallibility, to get supreme ruler, from that ?

As for the keys, I’m not aware of appeals to the Greek, but Jesus is clearly paraphrasing Isaiah 22:22, when Isaiah describes how he will give the symbolic keys of David’s household to a new chief of David’s household.

OK. Partly agree, for Peter was the first to preach, and then preach to gentiles, and a few other firsts. But many will also say it is clear the other apostles followed suite, used the keys also in their travels, doing "firsts’ in faraway.Jesus also holds the keys asper Rev.:

“These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open”.

“And I hold the keys of death and Hades.”

But to say infallible, supreme over the others?

I know the Orthodox later point out that binding and loosing (also from that same passage, but without mentioning the keys directly) was given to all Bishops, but we can’t deny that Peter was singled out, nor that he has obvious prominence in the Gospels and Acts and was clearly among the most influential, at the very least. Plus the ending of the gospel of John where Jesus has him thrice confess his love and instructs him in particular to feed his sheep.

All of this fits better to Peter being "first amongst equals’’. Amongst, not “over”.

Good stuff, thanks for getting the ball rolling

Blessings

 

[Vico]

I’m not talking about infallibility. I am talking about issues of authority, in which case the average early medieval Christian clearly understood that Christ gave equal authority and powers to all of the apostles in accordance with their views on Matthew 16. There is no peculiar office of Peter that is deemed to have been established in the early Christian’s understanding of Matthew 16.

I sdo not believe that authority is separable from infallibility; it includes teaching authority. The Catechism has:

553 … The “power of the keys” designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: “Feed my sheep.” …

John 21 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter,* “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?”* He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.”
16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” [Jesus] said to him, “Feed my sheep.

**John 10 **11 I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep.

 

[benhur]

And this appointment made them all take a step back when looking at Peter.

Hi JM,

There is no indication of this, other than what was happening from the beginning, that Peter was top disciple, but meaning what? They were all disciples equally, learning at the masters feet, each with their own gifting.

Secondly, shortly after this we have two occasions where the apostles were arguing amongst themselves as to who would be greater in the kingdom, and who would sit at the "King’s " right hand.

We are citizens of a Kingdom, a special People in the world with a King. And he has appointed governors to establish his ordering of his People

Agree. Just that the word is more specific than "governor’. It is presbyter/bishop/elder.

His kingdom is not fully come down yet, and is not fully visible yet, and will have new/old offices as He so chooses, with finally a visible King. I disagree with those who try to completely foreshadow the future, and say we now have have a full visible hierarchy kingdom in the church.

Blessings