Who is the rock: Peter or God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter RSiscoe
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

RSiscoe

Guest
There have been a lot of posts lately discussing Peter as the rock. I am going to post a portion of a debate I had with a Protestant a few years ago. Maybe someone will be able to use part of this when talking with Protestants. In the debate, my oponent stated that God, not Peter, was the rock; then proceeded to quote Bible passages to support that claim. The following was my response:

There is no question about it, God is certainly the Rock. But why did He also name Simon rock?

Let us start by looking at the word rock in the Old Testament. The Hebrew word for rock is “Tsur”. It is also interesting that the word “tsur” also means God. Some versions of the Bible translate the Hebrew word “Tsur” as “rock” and some translate it as “God”. For example, the King James Version of the Bible translates tsur as follows:

“As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried. He is a buckler to all those that trust in him. For who is God save the Lord, or who is a rock (Tsur) save our God?” (Psalm 18).

The Catholic Douay-Rheims version of the Bible translates the same passage as follows:
“As for my God, his way is undefiled: the words of the Lord are fire tried: he is the protector of all that trust in Him. For who is God but the Lord? or who is God (Tsur) but our God?” (Psalm 18:31-32).

We can see that the name “Rock” belongs properly to God, for He is truly our unmovable rock: *“The Lord is my rock (tsur) and my fortress” (Psalm 18:2); “Unto thee will I cry, O Lord, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 28:1); I will say unto God, my rock (tsur) (ibid. 42:9); Truly my soul waiteth upon God: from Him cometh my salvation. He only is my rock (tsur) and my salvation…My soul, wait thou only upon God … my rock (tsur) and my salvation… He is my rock(tsur) …” (ibid 62:2,6,7); “and they remembered that God was their rock (tsur)” (ibid. 78:35). *

So we can see that what you said is exactly correct. God is the rock. And not only is He called Rock, but the Hebrew word for rock (tsur), also means God.

But there is another person in the Old Testament who is called by this name rock (tsur). Abraham, the father of the Jewish race is referred to as a “rock” in the Old Testament: *“Look unto the rock (tsur) whence you are hewn … look unto Abraham your Father” (Isaias 51:1-2). *Why does the Bible call Abraham “rock”?

continue…
 
The Symbolism of Father Abraham: As we know, the Old Testament has many “types” and “images” of New Testament realities. The Paschal Lamb, for example, that was sacrificed by the Jews during Passover, foreshadowed Our Lord who was sacrificed for us on Mt. Calvary during Passover. The Old Testament Lamb could not take away sins, but rather pointed to the One who would. That is why, when John the Baptist saw our Lord, he declared *“behold the Lamb of God, the one who taketh away the sins of the world”. *There are countless other examples of the Old Testament foreshadowing the New Testament. We will look at one other…

In the Old Testament, God is often referred to as “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob”. I believe this threefold name is an Old Testament “image” of the Blessed Trinity. This image becomes clear when we consider that Father Abraham (who represents God the Father) led his son Isaac up Mt. Moria to be sacrificed to God. Isaac, his son (who represents Jesus) carried the wood up the Mountain, just as Our Lord carried the wood of the cross up Mt. Calvary. Mt. Moria was later re-named Calvary, and is the same mountain upon which Our Lord was crucified. Jacob, the third person, represents the Holy Ghost who is the third person of the Blessed Trinity. This explains why the New Testament Church - whose members have become “a temple of the Holy Ghost” (1 Cor. 6:16) - is called in Scripture “the house of Jacob” (Luke 1), for Jacob represents the Holy Ghost who dwells within the Church. So we can see that “the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob” was an image of the Blessed Trinity, which explains why God was called by that triune name.

The name Rock, which properly belongs to God, was also attributed to Abraham as one who prefigured God the Father. I believe that is why Abraham is referred to as Rock (tsur) in the Old Testament.

Now, if we proceed to the New Testament we will find that God (Jesus) is again called by the name Rock. *"and the rock that followed them was Christ " (1 Cor. 10. Also see 1 Peter 2:6-7 and Romans 9:33). *So we see that in both the Old Testament and the New, God is called “Rock”.

continue…
 
Yet we also see that God gave this name Rock (a name which belongs to God) to another man: and this man was Simon, bar Jona. In the Old Testament, Abraham, who was the Father of the Jewish nation, was only referred to as “Rock” in passing, yet Jesus did not just refer to Simon as “rock”, but went so far as to change his name to Rock! Jesus conveyed a name upon Simon which properly belonged to God! *"And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou are Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter (rock) (John 1:42). *Is it a merecoincidence that Jesus, who is the Rock, changed Peter’s name to Rock? I think not.

**What’s in a name? *: When God imposes a name on someone, the name conveys a meaning that describes the person. For example, since Abraham was a “type” of God the Father, and the Father of the Jewish race, God changed his name from Abram, to Abraham. The name Abraham means “father of a multitude” (Strongs #85, Hebrew). In re-naming Abram “Abraham", God designated him as the Father of the Jewish people. So likewise, when Our Lord renamed Simon Peter, which means rock, he designated him as the visible representative of Himself, the true rock, and gave Peter a participation in His own authority when he declared: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys to the kingdom of heaven” which properly belong to Me “and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:20). *

*St. Basil: "Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock . For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants" (St. Basil, circa 345AD).

There is certainly a great significance to God naming Simon, Peter (which means rock). For “Rock” is a name that belongs properly to God Himself, and only used to refer to only one other person in the Bible: and that person is no less a figure than Father Abraham, the father of the Jewish race. Such things are not a coincidence.

continue…*
 
Before I proceed, I want to quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent so that we can get an accurate understanding of what the Catholic Church teaches regarding the office of the Pope.

"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father ‘hath made head over all the Church, which is his body’ [Eph. 1:22-23], the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.

"It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: ‘One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed’. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: 'Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united to communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whosoever is not in the ark of Noah [an Old Testament type of the Catholic Church] shall perish in the flood.

"The same doctrine was long before established by Saint Irenaeus, and Cyprian. …Again, Optatus of Milevi says: ‘You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator’.

**" Later on St. Basil wrote: 'Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou are Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock . For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants’. “Lastly, St. Ambrose says: ‘Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all’.” (The Catechism of the Council of Trent pgs. 102 - 104).

continue…**
 
**More evidence of Peter being the chief Apostle: **The fact that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles is indicated in many other places of the New Testament. For example, although Peter was not the first apostle chosen by Our Lord, when the Apostles are listed, Peter’s name is always first (Matt. 10:2-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13), while Judas (who betrayed Jesus) is always last. Although the other apostles are not always in the same order, the writers, who were inspired by God, were always careful to place St. Peter’s name at the beginning of the list, and Judas’ last.

Peter’s name is also mentioned about six times more than any other Apostle, and more times that all of the other Apostles combined, which also shows a certain prominence. The Bible also calls Peter “the first” (protos) Apostle (St. Matt 10:2). The Greek word Protos is the Latin word Primus, from which we get the word “Primacy”. So when the Bible says that Peter was “the first” Apostle, it could be translated to say that Peter held the Primacy over the others; or that he was the “Chief” Apostle (Strongs # 4413, Greek).

**St. Jerome: **“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

It is also interesting to notice that when the Bible speaks of the Apostles, It often refers to them as “Peter, and the others”, etc. *"Tell his disciples, and Peter (St. Mark 16). “Peter standing up, with the eleven” (Acts. 2). “And Simon, and they who were with him…” (St. Mark 1). *This again seems to show that Peter was the leader of the others. We also know that when it came time to pay taxes, Jesus paid the taxes for both Himself and Peter, but not the other Apostles. And it was to St. Peter only that Jesus gave the command to “confirm the brethren” (Luke 22:32); and again, Jesus gave Peter alone the command to “feed My lambs, feed by sheep” (John 21:17).

**Ephraim the Syrian: **"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (*Homilies *4:1 [A.D. 351]).

continue…
 
Now, let us again review the controversial verse from Matthew, Chapter 16. Jesus said to Simon: “Thou art Peter [rock], and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you [singular] the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you [singular] shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you [singular] shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:20).

Now, it is often claimed by non-Catholics that the “Rock” upon which Jesus will build His Church, refers to Jesus, and not Peter; or to Peter’s confession of faith, but not Peter; or anything else, just not Peter. Or that the words "Petra and Petrus have greatly different meanings, and therefore somehow change the obvious meaning of what is said (see endnote). Now it is certainly true that Jesus is referred to in Scripture as rock, and indeed IS the true rock. Yet who does not see that in the very same sentence where Jesus says that he will build his Church “upon this rock”, he renames Peter “rock”? Is there no significance to this? Is this a mere coincidence? And what about the very next sentence, which is no less significant. "I will give unto you" said Jesus to Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Mt 16:20).

Tertullian: “[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (*Modesty *21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

It is commonly known that the conveyance of keys is a conveyance of authority. In the book of Isaias, we read a passage somewhat similar to the one quoted above from the New Testament: “And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be called a father [Pope?] to the inhabitants of Jerusalem [Rome?], and to the house of Juda [Church?]. And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open, and no one shall shut: and he shall shut, and no one shall open” (Ch. 22).

The “keys” properly belong to Our Lord; for it was He who merited them for us: “I am the first and the last, alive and was dead: and behold I am living for ever and ever, and have the keys of death and Hell” (Apoc. 1:17-18). And further on: “*These things saith the Holy One and the True One, who hath the keys of David: He that openeth and no man shutteth, shutteth and no man openeth”( Apoc 3:7). *Yet who will deny the obvious words of Scripture wherein Our Lord passed these keys on to St. Peter, along with the words *“Whatsoever thou shall bind upon earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”(ibid.). *Thus we see Our Lord delegating the power which is properly His, to St. Peter, at the same time that He gave Peter the name which properly belongs to himself.

continue…
 
The obvious meaning is that Jesus is establishing Peter as the earthly head of His Church and conveying His authority upon Peter. This was the unanimous consent of Christianity up until the 16th century.

We know that when the Jews rejected Jesus, He established a new Church. This new Church consists of both Jews and Gentiles. In the Old Testament, Moses was the first earthly head of the Church. After he died the Jewish religion was ruled by his successor, who sat in the “chair of Moses” (St. Matt 23:2). In the New Testament Church, God no longer rules from the “Chair of Moses”, but from the “Chair of Peter”. If we do not wish to stray from the true fold, we must follow this voice: “In the Catholic Church I adhere to the Chair of Peter. Whoever does not wish to stray from the true fold must follow this voice” (St. Augustine, Apostolic Digest pg 251, circa 410AD).

The following symbolically describes what took place when the Jews rejected Our Lord: “Jesus rose up out of the synagogue and went into Peter’s house” (Luke 4:38). Now Our Lord teaches from Peter’s ship (diocese): "and [Jesus] going into a ship that was Peter’s… He taught the multitude out of the Ship (Luke 5:3).

“It is to Peter to whom Christ said: ‘Thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is no death but eternal life. Where Peter is, there is the Church” (St. Ambrose - Commentary on 12 of David’s Psalms, circa 360AD).

I will end this with the words of the Fathers of the Church.

St. Cyprian of Carthage 251AD: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ (Mt 16:18-19)… ‘On him (Peter) he builds his Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep’ (Jn 21:17), and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was (ie. apostles), but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all (the apostles) are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he (should) desert the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian of Carthage, 251 AD)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem: “As members of the Mystical Body of the Church, it behooves us to follow our head, the Roman Pontiff, who holds in trust the deposit of the Apostolic Faith. From him we are to learn what we are bound to believe, to think, and to hold. By divine right, everyone bows down the head before him.” (St. Cyril of Jerusalem - Catechetical Lectures pg. 33, circa 350AD)

St. Augustine: "These miserable retches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter, and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very Keys from their own hands. (St. Augustine, Christian Combat, circa 397AD).

Tertullian: “Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on whom the Church would be built’ [Mt 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ {Mt 16:19]?” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 200AD)

continue…
 
· (Endnote) In an attempt to get around Peter being the rock upon whom Jesus said he would build His Church, many will go to the Greek text of the Scriptures to show that the word used for “Peter” is not the same word used for “this rock” upon which Jesus said He would build His Church. The following is Matthew 16:18 showing the two Greek words for rock. “Thou art Peter (Petrus) and upon this rock (Petra) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Mt 16:18). After showing, in the Greek, that the word for Peter is not the exact same word that is used for rock, they will conclude by explaining that the word “Petrus” (which was used for Peter) means a small pebble, while the word “Petra” means a big stone; thus they draw the conclusion that Jesus did not mean He would build His Church on Peter (the small rock), but upon Himself, or possibly Peters earlier confession of faith (the big rock). This explanation is usually accepted with no further questions asked by those listening. But is it true? Lets look and see. We will start by looking up the definitions of the two Greek words Petra and Petrus using the Strong’s Concordance.

petra # 4073. - “Fem. of the same as 4074: a (mass of) rock (lit. or fig.): - rock.”

Petros # 4074 - "Appar. a Prim. word: a (piece of) rock (larger than 3037):

as a name, Petrus, an apostle: - Peter, rock. comp.2786"

Notice, the definition for Petros (aka Petrus) tells us that it is larger that # 3037. A quick check of the number 3037 in the same concordance takes us to the word “lithos”. When looking at the definition for the word lithos we see that it is defined as:

"appar. a prim. word: a stone (lit. or fig.): - (mill -, stumbling) stone.

Notice that “lithos” (#3037) is defined as either a stumbling stone or a millstone. When we read that Petrus is larger that “lithos”, it cannot be referring to a stumbling stone, because a stumbling stone does not denote size. Therefore we must understand the comparison to be referring to a millstone. What is a millstone? A millstone is a huge round stone used for crushing grain. “it would be better for him that a millstone be hung around his neck and he be drowned in the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones” (Lk 17:2). As we can see from this verse, a millstone is no small pebble, but a massive stone. According to the definition of the word Petrus (Peter), it is larger than a millstone; therefore Petrus does not mean a small pebble, as many try to claim, but rather it is a massive rock, larger than a millstone.

Why, then, does the Greek text use two different words for rock? The answer is simple. If you notice in the definition of Petra, it says that it is a Feminine word; this is expressed by the “Fem.” at the beginning of the definition. The masculine form of the word Petra is the Greek word Petrus. Notice also in the definition of petra #4073, it says that it is the same as #4074 which is Petros. Obviously the writer could not have used a feminine word to describe Peter, therefore he translated it into the masculine form of the same word; thus we have the two words, Petra and Petrus.

END
 
This essay show agreat deal of homework, or you copyed and pasted from some source.
Can you give the source?
 
40.png
Exporter:
This essay show agreat deal of homework, or you copyed and pasted from some source.
Can you give the source?
Click to expand...
I did all the homework myself. What I posted above is from a written debate I once had on a Protestant website. I had actually written most of it earlier in a letter to my mother’s Anglican Priest.

I met with him one day to discusses the Anglican Church and the Catholic Church (trying to convert him). There was much we agreed on and a few things we disagreed on. After the meeting, as I was thinking about it, I realized the main point of disagreement was the Papacy; everything else seemed secondary, and it seemed to me if I could clear up the Papacy, everythng else would fall into place.

The Priest was not happy with the Anglican Church, and was not sure what he was going to do. Our meeting took place at about the time when they were having their own “crisis”: Their leader had just ordained an openly gay man as Bishop, and he was very troubled by this…

Our meeting was very cordial, but I did not shy away from letting him know that he should enter the Catholic Church - that it was the Church established by our Lord, and outside of that Church there is no salvation. I gave him a lot of good information that certainly left him thinking.

After our meeting, I followed up with a letter containing most of the information given above, plus a defence of celibacy, since he did not understand the reasons for it.

When I had my debate, I used much of the information from that letter in response to one of my oponents questions. Since I have never seen some of the arguments I used, I decided to post them here so others could benefit from them.

I may post some more of that debate also, because it answers some of the common arguments that Catholics are confronted with.
 
Rsiscoe,

I am an apologist in training, I will save this…

Thank you,

May god always be with you!
 
We are having this discussion on another thread and when I noticed this one, I thought I would contribute this message to think about…

Let us look at a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
**“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…” **

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

This is an important point since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the regulation that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.)

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair of you
to more or less imply that I am a blockhead and unable
to understand. Are the Church Fathers also stupid?

And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also stupid? Wouldn’t one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings…

“How the Pope Became Infallible” by August Bernhard Hasler.
“Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry” by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX’s desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair of you
to more or less imply that I am a blockhead and unable
to understand. Are the Church Fathers also stupid?
Click to expand...
“Peter is the rock” and “Peter’s faith is the rock” isn’t mutually exclusive. “Peter is the rock” and “Peter is not the rock”, on the other hand, is mutually exclusive.

We’d need more data to see if the patristic interpretations you’ve indicated refer to the former or to the latter. Considering that Pope John Paul II and the Catechism interpret the rock in several ways, the material you’ve presented from Archbishop Kenrick isn’t problematic for the Catholic position.
 
Fr Ambrose:
We are having this discussion on another thread and when I noticed this one, I thought I would contribute this message to think about…

Let us look at a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
**“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…” **

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kendrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

This is an important point since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the regulation that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.)

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair of you
to more or less imply that I am a blockhead and unable
to understand. Are the Church Fathers also stupid?

And you should remember that 65 of the bishops gathered
at the First Vatican Council REFUSED to vote for the
proposed dogma of papal infallibility. Were they
also stupid? Wouldn’t one say that IF the doctrine
had been so normal and accepted in the Catholic Church
in the centuries prior to Vatican I that there would
never have been such a solid block of resisting bishops
who refused to vote for it in 1869.
This was only 133 years ago, quite recently.

You can check these facts in several major Catholic writings…

“How the Pope Became Infallible” by August Bernhard Hasler.
“Infallible? - An Unresolved Enquiry” by Hans Kung.

They say that at the opening of Vatican I only 50 bishops
were in favour of Pope Pius IX’s desire to have the Popes
declared infallible. 130 of the bishops had declared
beforehand that they were against Papal Infallibility,
and the rest of the bishops, 620 were undecided.
Click to expand...
What the heck do the Bishops of Vatican 1 have to do with Peter as the Rock did all the dissenters vote against it because they didn’t think Peter was the Rock? You have brought up 1 single guy who goes to the Peter is the Rock card. Many other bishops sensitive to ecunmeical realtions with the Orthodox and Anglicans and who beleived a reunion was right around the corner with both communions beleived that the Dogma though correct should not be agreed upon until after reunification. Cardianl JOhn Henry Neumann was such a person. He beleived in Papal Infalliablity but did not want to vote for it because he felt the Anglican Communion which was going a strong catholic movement within it was ready to rejoin the catholic church and this doctrine would be another obstacle that would imede it. By having it done after reunification it would have been far less problematic.
 
Fr Ambrose:
Now in light of the fact that the large majority of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair of you
to more or less imply that I am a blockhead and unable
to understand. Are the Church Fathers also stupid?
Click to expand...
Since you use the name Fr. Ambose, I had always assumed you were a Catholic Priest. Since you seem to question an infallible dogma of the Church, I now see you are not.

One thing I have noticed when dealing with Protestants, and other heretics, is that they often use one truth to nullify another: they exalt one truth to the exclusion, and rejection, of another. For example, they will point to the verse that tell us how important faith is, ignore the verses that speak of the necessity of good works, then claim that “faith alone” is all we need. They thereby admit one truth, while simultaneously rejecting another. Or they will exalt the authority of the Bible and then reject the authority of the Church (Mt 18:17), or Tradition (2 Thes. 2:14,15). They use one truth to nullify another.

This is similar to what you have done. You have pointed out that some Church fathers said that Peter’s faith was the rock, and that Jesus was the rock, both of which are true. But then you fell into the error of rejecting another very clear truth: that Simon himself is “rock”. His very name was changed to “rock”.

In the above portion of your post, you said that “a large portion of the church fathers do not teach that Peter is the rock”. What you said is false. They do not say Peter IS NOT the rock, they simply say that his faith can also be called a rock, and that our Lord is also a rock. In fact, St. Augustine is often quoted as saying that Peter is the rock, and in another place that his faith is the rock. He is not contradicting himself, but pointing out that both can ligitimately be called a rock, just as virtue can also be described as a “rock”.

Since you claimed publically, on a Catholic message board, that a “large majority of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock is Saint Peter”, please provide the evidence of them saying Peter IS NOT the rock. Not quotes referring to Peter’s faith as a rock; not quotes saying Jesus is the rock: I acknowledge that both are true. What I would like to see are quotes from “a majority of the church fathers” claiming that Peter IS NOT the rock.

And it doesn’t matter if, at the beginning of the Council, a majority of the Fathers were not in favor of Papal infallibility. What matters is that the dogma was defined INFALLIBLY. If you were a Catholic Priest, you would understand this.

God does not operate through a majority vote, or popular opinion. He speaks through the Church when it defines doctrines.

I am curious, what sect (2 Peter 2:1) do you belong to, and why do you use the name Fr. Ambrose?
 
RSiscoe,

**Your last post was succinct and distinct, it’s meaning is unmistakable. Thank You. **

From past posts I think you’ll find that “Father Ambrose” is not Priest of the Roman Catholic Church. It would be an extremely serious matter for a Roman Catholic to say that the Church of Jesus Christ was NOT built on St. Peter.

I will venture to say “Father Ambrose” may possibly be a member of the Orthodox Church, since they contend they do not recognise the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on Earth. They split away from the Catholic Church in the 11th Century, but they will not say they split away…they say The Roman Church split away. Maybe this post has some truth in it.
 
RSiscoe, I really enjoyed your homework and I also appreciate it. I get much information here. I say this because I have a sister who is a fallen away Catholic not that she practiced her faith just that she was batized and raised Catholic and I ofter use Jesus’s works to Peter to clarify the whole Papel authority. I have always beleive this to be the strongest argument for Peter’s succession and you my friend have made it even more clear to me and I will read and reread your post so that I can absorb all that you put into it. One of the things I would say to my sister is What did Jesus mean when he said to Peter that you are the rock on which I will build my church and that the keys of the kingdom have been handed to you. Why would Jesus leave us here without any authority considering our fallen nature. Anyhow thank you for all of your hardwork and know that it is appreciated.

God Bless
Kathleen
 
R Siscoe,

Fr. Ambrose is an orthodox priest, not a heretical Protestant. If you’d like to name-call you would have done been better in calling him a schismatic priest, or, schismatic Orthodox.

“One ought not jump without first knowing where he is going to land.” – a former paratrooper in the U.S. Army.

However, I found your debate material very worthwhile. I reject this position of Fr. Ambrose and the Orthodox on historical, biblical and spiritual levels and hold the Catholic position for the same historical, biblical, and spiritual reasons.

For me, a Roman Catholic who is soon to be a Maronite Catholic, I hold that:

A) the faith of Cepha (Peter - fomerly Simon bar Jonah), and Cepha himself are not mutually exclusive, as some Orthodox and all Protestants hold in fact as with much of Catholicism it is a both/and relationship not an either/or one; and

B) Yeshua (Jesus) being the Rock and Cepha being established by Yeshua as the rock on which He would build His Church are also not mutually exclusive… for the same historical, biblical, and spiritual reasons.

So, for me I find no problem in referring to Jesus as the Rock, as well as Peter as the Rock. For, who am I, a simple sinner – the least of His flock worthless sinner that I am – to correct the Lord?

Aside from you flippant remark to the good priest, your work and words are of much value.

Your unworthy brother in Christ and by the Grace of God a future Catholic priest,
Donnchadh

Agus go gcasfar le chéile sinn arís, go gcoinní Dia i mbosa a láimhe thú.

(And until we meet again, may God hold you in the palm of His hand.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top