Who is the rock: Peter or God?

[Ignatius]

#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.

Remember, Our Lord was not speaking in Greek but Aramaic or Hebrew. Cephas (no gender) means rock. When Jesus changed the name of Simon bar Jonah to Cephas (rock) he said to Simon bar Jonah, “Thou are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church. . . . and I will give to you the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. . . . and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

It is perfectly unambiguous to anyone who wants to know the plain meaning of it.

Someone once said “To those who do not want to believe, no proof will be sufficient.”

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

It’s nice to see someone point out that God is the Rock.​

IMO people get bogged down discussing Peter and give the impression of forgetting the One without Whom neither Peter nor any other Christian would be so much as shifting sand.

Stanley Jaki O.S.B. has a few things to say on the matter ##

 

[achile]

I’m searching the documents of the Council of Trent to find Matthew 16:17 quoted and the faith of Peter identified as the rock. Help

 

[tm30]

The simplest explanation is that when God is compared to a rock, it is by the application/appellation of a mortal. When Peter was called a rock, it was by God Himself, and when God declares anything, it ipso facto exists. e.g, Creation “And God said… and God said… And God said… and He saw that it was good.” So, in calling Simon “Peter”, it is incontrovertible that Simon was now “Peter” or “rock”. This wasn’t a nickname like “sons of thunder” - this was a total re-naming a la Abram, Jacob, Joshua, etc.

That said, given that Peter is invested with the office of representing Christ on earth, by extension, the rock is also Christ. The entire foundation of the Church is built on Peter, through the Holy Spirit, which contains the Father and the Son in equal measure. Therefore, it is gravely erroneous to say that Peter is not the rock. God Himself uttered this from His own lips. The equivalent would be to say the God did not create the universe by the utterance of His Word.

 

[juliamajor]

The simplest explanation is that when God is compared to a rock, it is by the application/appellation of a mortal. When Peter was called a rock, it was by God Himself, and when God declares anything, it ipso facto exists. e.g, Creation “And God said… and God said… And God said… and He saw that it was good.” So, in calling Simon “Peter”, it is incontrovertible that Simon was now “Peter” or “rock”. This wasn’t a nickname like “sons of thunder” - this was a total re-naming a la Abram, Jacob, Joshua, etc.

That said, given that Peter is invested with the office of representing Christ on earth, by extension, the rock is also Christ. The entire foundation of the Church is built on Peter, through the Holy Spirit, which contains the Father and the Son in equal measure. Therefore, it is gravely erroneous to say that Peter is not the rock. God Himself uttered this from His own lips. The equivalent would be to say the God did not create the universe by the utterance of His Word.

Actually it doesn’t have to either/or but both /and.That is actually the basis of much Catholic theology.