Who is 'the Rock'?

[PhilVaz]

montalban << The different between our arguments are, I use Cyrpians words, you use commentators on Cyrpian. I must repeat therefore what you ignore (hence you ask about not knowing where I’m drawing Cyrpian ‘interpretation’ from). >>

And to repeat: you appear to be confusing St. Cyprian with St. Ambrose. Mistake one. Do you want to deal with Cyprian or Ambrose on Peter, rock, and Papacy?

The commentators on Cyprian I have used are the Anglican Edward Giles (Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, pages 49, 52), and the Orthodox Nicholas Afanassieff (see The Primacy of Peter edited by Meyendorff, pages 98-99) who was a professor of canon law and church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris. They are much more reliable than your take on Cyprian, since you confuse Cyprian with Ambrose.

Here are some of the main passages of Cyprian that need to be dealt with carefully:

“[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]…On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned 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 that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)

It is my understanding that Bevenot who you have referred to has confirmed Chapman’s original thesis that both “versions” of Cyprian’s Unity were authored by Cyprian, but Cyprian “played down” the “primacy” quotes when he later disputed with the Pope. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand both “versions” of Unity were authored by Cyprian. See also Cyprian, Letter 33 (27), 1 to the Lapsed, c. AD 250 on “chair of Peter” referring to all the bishops.

“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.” (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)

“There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is One and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another.” (Cyprian, Letter 66 (69), 8 to Florentius Pupianus, c. AD 254)

Taken from John Chapman’s careful study of Cyprian here. The quotations above are from Jurgens translations of Cyprian (see Faith of the Early Fathers, volume 1).

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

On the “keys of the kingdom” and the connection to Isaiah 22 I have this from Protestant scholars:

(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching, and Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as Christ’s chief teacher;

(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);

(C) The authority of the keys is likened to that of the teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day, and the correct interpretation of the Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church) through the tradition of Peter;

(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7), since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;

(E) Therefore, the keys (or “key” singular) represent FULL authorization, FULL authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME authority;

(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be understood as merely entrance keys (or “opening the door of faith” to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household (cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ’s universal Church (cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);

(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the “gatekeeper of heaven” or “doorkeeper” but is therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on earth;

(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist, legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;

(I) The language of “binding” and “loosing” is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching or a teaching function (or “Halakhic” pronouncements), denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;

(J) The “binding” and “loosing” refers to the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed, and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

Dynastic Succession and Isaiah 22

The key question is (pun intended), was there a succession implied in Christ giving the keys of the kingdom, this enormous authority to Peter? The answer is Yes, notice Isaiah 22:15-25 which many scholars believe is the background to the handing on of the keys from Jesus (the promised Messiah in the Davidic line and kingdom) to Peter (the Chief Steward or Prime Minister of Christ’s new Kingdom on earth, the universal Church).

The Evangelical NIV Study Bible notes on Isaiah 22 – on verse 15: “…in charge of the palace. A position second only to the king…”; on verse 22: “…key to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who belongs to David’s dynasty – perhaps controlling entrance into the royal palace. Cf. the ‘keys of the kingdom’ given to Peter (Mt 16:19) .”

Even the New International Version, the standard Evangelical (one might say “anti-Catholic”) translation recognizes the parallel and connection between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19. Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being “over the household” and “in charge of the palace” (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority “what he shall open, no one shall shut…and what he shall shut, no one shall open” (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7).

The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the “keys,” “binding,” and “loosing” that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the “keys” just as the prime minister had the “key to the house of David” (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 – the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Thus we have an implicit teaching of apostolic succession (or Petrine succession) in the giving of the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” to St. Peter.

From my (unfinished) article responding to James G. McCarthy

Phil P

 

[kaycee]

Pastor aeternus, April 24, 1870:

"We, therefore, for the preservation, safekeeping, and increase of the Catholic flock,… in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy. We therefore teach and declare that according to the testimony of the Gospel, **the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter ** the Apostle by Christ the Lord. …

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy scripture **as it has been ever understood by the catholic church are the perverse opinions of those ** who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separtely or together, was endowed by Christ with a true proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostel was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole church militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper juridition: let him be anathema."

The French Roman Catholic Launoy serveyed the patristic evidence and **found seventeen citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matt 16. ** Please not that this does not mean that all 17 of these fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of Rome was a Pope, but only that they saw Math 16 and the phrase “this rock” as referring to Peter. **However, Launoy found 16 citations that identified the rock as Christ. He found eight that identified all the Apostles together as forming the rock of Matt 16. and he found forty-four citations indicating that the rock of Matt 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ. If we add these numbers together, we find that the Roman position,m which claims to have “always” been the faith of the catholic Church, in Launoy’s survey actually represents twenty percent of the Fathers. Eighty percent of the time, then, the early Fathers epressed, in vatican I’s words, “perverse” opinions at the very best. ** I might note that even as late as the Council of Trent it was said this passage was referring to the faith that Peter expressed. Should one Roman Catholic’s survey not be enough, we turn to the **Jesuit Maldonatus, who writes,

"There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is “on this faith”, or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is “on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith”**

 

[PhilVaz]

Nice try Kaycee but James White, where you get this information from, can’t hold a candle to John Chapman or Luke Rivington, both of whom are now on my site.

We’ve discussed the studies of Launoy and Maldonatus in previous threads. B.C. Butler shows in his book The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged "Salmon" how the anti-Catholic Anglican George Salmon has taken their studies out of context. For example, every one of those Fathers who taught the Rock was Peter’s faith, or Peter’s confession (like John Chrysostom did), or all the apostles, or all believers together (like Origen did), clearly also taught Peter was the rock. Augustine held several views: Peter himself is the rock, Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, Peter’s successors, and Christ is the rock. As does the Catechism of the Catholic Church right here:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

And what White (and Salmon) don’t tell you is these studies don’t cover just the Fathers, but go well into the Reformation and Renaissance periods. As B.C. Butler shows in his reply, this is well after the time the Papacy is established and acknowledged by all, even enemies of the Papacy. So we’re not talking the first 500 years or “just the early Church Fathers” in those studies.

See John Chapman on St. Augustine, and soon Luke Rivington on the early Papacy (PDFs are up, HTML soon).

And pray for LA and surrounding states, it doesn’t look good. We in Florida were spared.

Phil P

 

[kaycee]

PhilVaz:

Nice try Kaycee but James White, where you get this information from, can’t hold a candle to John Chapman or Luke Rivington, both of whom are now on my site.

We’ve discussed the studies of Launoy and Maldonatus in previous threads. B.C. Butler shows in his book The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged "Salmon" how the anti-Catholic Anglican George Salmon has taken their studies out of context. For example, every one of those Fathers who taught the Rock was Peter’s faith, or Peter’s confession (like John Chrysostom did), or all the apostles, or all believers together (like Origen did), clearly also taught Peter was the rock. Augustine held several views: Peter himself is the rock, Peter’s faith, Peter’s confession, Peter’s successors, and Christ is the rock. As does the Catechism of the Catholic Church right here:

The literal interpretation is that Simon alone is the rock of Christ’s Church, the Church is built on Peter personally (CCC 881, 586, 552). However, the Catechism also notes that Peter is the unshakeable rock because of his faith in Christ (CCC 552); that the acknowledgement of Christ’s divine sonship is the Church’s foundation (CCC 442); on the rock of Peter’s faith Christ built His Church (CCC 424); and Christ Himself as rock and “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:4ff; 1 Cor 10:4; Eph 2:20) is the foundation (CCC 756).

My point is theologically, there is no evidence of patristic consensus to support the Vatican I papal interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 equating the rock with the person of Peter, assigning to him and the Roman bishops the place of preeminence of rule in the Church through the authority of the keys. Vatican I is just plain wrong. **The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to the ‘universal consent of the fathers’ to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 is fallacious. ** Such a consensus does not exist. The interpretation of Matthew 16:18 by the major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and West demonstrates that the overwhelming majority view of the Church historically is not that of the Roman Catholic Church today. The fact is, apart from the popes themselves—beginning in the late fourth century—and with those who have an interest in promoting the papacy, the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16:18–19 has historically been universally rejected by the Church in both East and West. And what is true in the exegetical history is true also in historical practice. It is clear from the history of the Church, in the attitudes and actions of the general Councils and with individual fathers in their dealings with the bishops of Rome, that in the patristic age, the Church never operated on the basis of a universal Roman primacy or in the belief in papal infallibility.

Yves Congar is one of the most influential Roman Catholic historians and theologians of this century. He makes the following statements on the Eastern Church’s ecclesiology and of the patristic understanding of the rock of Matthwe 16:

Many of the Eastern Fathers who are rightly acknowledged to be the greatest and most representative and are, moreover, so considered by the universal Church, do not offer us any more evidence of the primacy. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing a major part in the Catholic communion—we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch—but they provide us with no theological statement on the universal primacy of Rome by divine right. The same can be said of St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. John Damascene (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).

It does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16–19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical (Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan, 1966), p. 398).

 

[Montalban]

trogiah:

I had never seen the phrase Antiochian Orthodox

Yeah, we need a better PR agency

trogiah:

so I looked it up.

A good thing to do.

trogiah:

It appears that it is part of the Greek Orthodox Church

No. We are part of the Orthodox Church, to which the Greek Orthodox Church also belongs.

- the Church that ended up seperate from the Roman Catholic Church around 1000 AD. (I guess I am asking to be sure of your history)

Mid 1000s you ‘officially’ split from us

trogiah:

I went to an Antiochian Orthodox website (I think a rather open and honest one) and found the following question.

“Is it possible then that there might be one true Church?* How should we look at that question?”

I have my own answer to that question. The one true Church is made up of those who believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the son of the Living God. (As may appear obvious, this was Peter’s confession just before Jesus made him - or something - the Rock)

The debate over exactly what this means will probably carry until the end of time but one thing we should remember is Jesus is the focus of the faith of anyone who calls themself a member of the one true Church. Not Peter or anyone else.

I mostly agree. If you cast your eyes up the thread to the post wherein I mention what it is to be ‘Catholic’ you will see what it means as according to those who first used it - a church headed by a bishop

trogiah:

I think that history matters. History tells us that Rome was a very important center of civilization at the time Christianity began. My understanding is even then some Greeks might argue that point and call the Romans ignorant barbarians and that culturally speaking, the Greeks had no equal.

But from a political point of view, Rome was a world power, perhaps no other nation in history could say with more confidence “We are the center of the world”

True. Rome’s prestige within the Church was because it was the central city of the Empire, and because of it’s strong association with two of the leading lights of the church Peter AND Paul.

trogiah:

As Christianity spread, (and Paul was able to travel so freely to spread it because he was Roman citizen) the historical fact of Roman power did matter. If someone wanted to reach “everyone” Roman roads could help make that happen. Thus, purely out of hisorical happenstance and convenience, the Bishop of Rome came to be a focal point of the Faith.

Then this would negate Papal claims with the rise of Constantinople in the 300s - hence ALL the Ecumenical councils were held in the east (Note, this is NOT the argument I am trying to make for myself, but I am extending YOUR argument to it’s logical outcome)
End part 1

 

[Montalban]

trogiah:

This focal point does not change the fact that those who are part of the one true church are those who believe Jesus is the Messiah. But this focal point means something. I am still trying to figure out exactly what it means, but I am certain that dismissing it as unnecessary and meaningless is not part of God’s plan.

So what would Jesus say about the church today. I don’t know for sure but I think, on a bad day, it might be something like Matthew chapter 23
Lets hope for good days.
peace
-Jim

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You’ve touched upon some interesting points. The change in the status of Constantinople shows that the ‘prestige’ or honour of a city’s bishopric could change - because Constantinople leapt over the ‘prestige’ of older cities such as Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem

Thus…

“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” [1]

Note on the changing of the status of Constantinople…​

[1] ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm

 

[Montalban]

PhilVaz:

On the “keys of the kingdom” and the connection to Isaiah 22 I have this from Protestant scholars:
Phil P

Honestly, I feel that you’re not reading all the posts. I already noted that the ‘keys to the kingdom’ have been given to Peter AND John. Here it is again…
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”

-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, p1.
Also at:[1] (footnote in next post)
“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter “the keys to the kingdom” and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18 ), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[2]

This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,

Luke 22

24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.

25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.

26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.

28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.

29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[3]
We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.
Part II has some more ‘commentary’

 

[Montalban]

I apologise for having to continually split my posts as I can’t post all in one hit; I also apologise for the length and note that many of you live busy lives and can’t address all the points that I make.
St. Jerome
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named.
(6th Book on Matthew)[4]

Origen (I apologise for the length of this quote)
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,"71 hold
in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, “Upon this rock I will build My church”?72 Are the keys of the kingdom of
heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven,"73 be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,"74 etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit,"75 etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking
away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord"76 they may
speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, “Lord Jesus,” and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God."77 And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of “rock” who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom.79 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, “Thou art Peter,” etc., down to the words, “prevail against it.” But what is the “it”? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs,80 cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock,81 is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”[5]

The teachings too, of Jesus were given fully to all the Apostles.

---

[1] ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-14/npnf1-14-05.htm#P175_1913
[2] catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

[3] biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&passage=luke+22&version=NIV

[4] Whelton, p32.

[5] ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm

 

[Montalban]

PhilVaz:

OK, montalban, you said repeatedly the following is found in Cyprian’s treatise on the Unity of the Catholic Church. However I can’t find it there. You appear to be mistaken.

My apologies, my web-site reference was for Cyprian, but the quote was of Ambrose “On the Incarnation”. My confusion lay in that both are on the same page of Whelton’s book, which at least is cited correctly.

PhilVaz:

“Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of hisfaith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock – thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the rock.”

So do you want to discuss St. Cyprian now or St. Ambrose?

Either. Clearly the quote still debunks papal claims.

PhilVaz:

You have posted too much information to deal with.

I apologise for this also. I think it’s a better response though then “It’s been refuted elsewhere”

PhilVaz:

You keep referring to a “Whelton” in your footnotes, “quoted in Whelton” etc so that is a secondary source as well. And his book is very polemical (unlike the Anglican Giles).

I thought I had cited it in full in the opening post. Edit: I just checked. It is. Perhaps you missed it???

PhilVaz:

James Likoudis has responded to both Michael Whelton (the fallen away Catholic) and Clark Carlton (the Baptist convert to Orthodoxy) and others in great detail. I’ll admit its a lot of complex history to deal with, and should be dealt with carefully, not sloppily. Cyprian is not Ambrose.
Phil P

Indeed, and I see you wish to run with this for some time, both the mistake (which oddly enough you still don’t address the quotes very clear death knell to your belief), and, you wish to persist with the ‘oh, I don’t need to answer it, because it’s dealt with already somewhere else’.

Both Cyprian AND Ambrose refute you.

Let me know if you wish to debate, or whether you merely wish to defer to others.

 

[Montalban]

Genesis315:

You guys have covered so much already, but I noticed no one brought up the parallel between Matt. 16:18-19 and Isaias 22:20-22.

Isaias 22:20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias, 21 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 as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Any thoughts?

My apologies for the delay in answering, though from the wording of your post I expect you may not have just been waiting for me to respond. I believe I’ve already cited the fact that the ‘powers’ were conferred on all the Apostles. This is in line with the notion that the ‘Catholic’ church is any church headed by a bishop. So, your post has not been forgotten, but has actually been addressed in discussions with other posters on this thread.

 

[Pythagoras]

I suggest montalban should use the search here in catholic answers because his questions have been answered a lot in the past already.

 

[Montalban]

One Catholic apologist gave me the startling fact. That between the books of Matthew and Revelations, Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times.[1]

The list is extensive, and beyond my means to address in full. However I mention it here in light of the fact that earlier, another posted cited this statistical evidence as one of the proofs of Papal supremecy. Although I already mentioned some faults with this line of reasoning I thought to address at least some few of the passages here… I have given what the web-site cites, and then my retort. Though you may find fault that I have addressed only a couple.

Just a sample rebuttal…

Website: 1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

**Montalban:**The Bible actually says…

1 Cor. 9:3 This is my defense to those who sit in judgment on me. 4 Don’t we have the right to food and drink? 5 Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas? 6 Or is it only I and Barnabas who must work for a living?

I would think that two people are singled out here, James, and Peter.

**Website:**Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter’s definitive teaching.

Montalban:

And when Paul and Barnbas speak, everyone else is silent. James sits in judgment, and he’s the one who makes the ruling. They each are silent at the appropriate moment out of politeness.

Website:

The Bible :Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn’t want to build on “another man’s foundation” referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

Montalban:

Romans 15: 19 by the power of signs and miracles, through the power of the Spirit. So from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum, I have fully proclaimed the gospel of Christ. 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation. 21 Rather, as it is written: “Those who were not told about him will see, and those who have not heard will understand.” 22 This is why I have often been hindered from coming to you.

This means Paul’s been preaching in places where the church is already etablished; such as in Jerusalem. But he intends to go where it has not been established; his ambition - to go to Rome. If Paul had have believed that Peter had already established a church in Rome, it would be odd then to say that he’s going to a place where no one has established a church.

---

[1] scripturecatholic.com/

 

[Montalban]

Pythagoras:

I suggest montalban should use the search here in catholic answers because his questions have been answered a lot in the past already.

Yes I have already noted the distinct lack of willingness to address the facts of the post. The appeal to ‘answered elsewhere’ or to search out the ‘facts’ to prove you correct is not at all convincing.

I have noted from the opening thread that many of the ‘catholic answers’ given on web-sites are dubious to say the least - including some citations mentioned here by some apologists.

The best retort so far is where a person has caught me out citing Cyprian for Ambrose. And he concentrated much effort to this ends, completely ignoring the fact that the quote, by a church father, is still quite devastating to his argument.

 

[Ghosty]

Montalban: I’m not sure I understand the thrust of your argument. Catholics do not deny that the community of Apostles as a group, and the whole of the disciples as a group, possess the same power as Peter. The point is that Peter as an individual possesses the same power that the others do as a group, and also belongs to that group in question.

You also selectively ignore the words of the passage of Luke, and what you ignore is very telling:

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift youa] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Yes, Peter will turn away, but when he turns back he has a unique commission!

Furthermore, saying that the Church is built on the faith of the Peter really does nothing to undermine the Church’s claim of Papal Infallibility, so it’s a moot point. Whether the rock is Peter, Jesus, or the hill on which they were both standing is splitting hairs; authority is given to Peter as an individual that is only given to others corporately with Peter. The fact that Peter’s name is changed to identify with the “rock of faith” or the “rock of Christ” is extremely telling. In fact, I think the objections to Peter being “the rock” prove too much, if anything. Rather than Peter simply being the foundation of the Church, he becomes synonymous with the whole faith, and with Christ himself.

The point on Constantinople proves little if anything also. The Catholic Church does not argue that the authority of the Roman Church is based on any royal privileges, so the lifting of the status of Constantinople as the “Royal City” means nothing more than a recognition that the secular power of the empire rests there. This leaves out the controversy concerning this Canon, which I don’t have time to address currently, but I will leave it to others with the resources at their fingertips.

 

[PhilVaz]

Montalban, thanks for acknowledging your mistake. Cyprian is not Ambrose. But again, on St. Ambrose it is a case of both/and

Your quote from Ambrose (not Cyprian):

“Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock – thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the rock.” (St. Ambrose, On the Incarnation)

BTW, the above does not say “Peter is NOT the rock.” Look at it carefully. What it is saying is that it is not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that the gates of hell should not prevail against. In other words, Peter himself is a sinner, and he could personally fall (not in faith or teaching, but in sin), and deny Christ (as we know he did in the Gospels).

The Catechism as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, says Jesus is the Rock and foundation (cf. 1 Cor 3:11; 10:4; 1 Peter 2:4ff), Peter’s faith and confession is the rock and foundation, etc. But we also insist Peter is the rock and foundation in Matthew 16, and so does Ambrose.

My counter from same:

“[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church …’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man (Luke 22:31-32) to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church (Matt 16:18)?” (St. Ambrose, The Faith 4:5 [AD 379]).

Ambrose explicitly says of Peter “whom he [Christ] called the rock, thereby declaring him [Peter] to be the foundation of the Church.” You can’t get any more explicit. So do read a little bit deeper. There is much more, but this one quote from Ambrose is enough to show Peter is the rock. Again we don’t deny Christ is the Rock in another (greater) sense.

All your material on John Chrysostom has been pretty well demolished by John Chapman. He deals with 90 passages from Chrysostom (all he could find). And you’re right, I’m not really interested in debating if we are just going to copy/paste large gobs of material to each other. More analysis on a small bit of writing is more appropriate. We are not writing books in here.

Perhaps I will find Whelton’s book since it appears to be your main source. And I’ll buy Likoudis rebuttal. I have his Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism but not these newer books.

Phil P

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Montalban: I’m not sure I understand the thrust of your argument. Catholics do not deny that the community of Apostles as a group, and the whole of the disciples as a group, possess the same power as Peter. The point is that Peter as an individual possesses the same power that the others do as a group, and also belongs to that group in question.

So a(b)=c is true but c=a(b) is false??? I wasn’t good at maths at school

Ghosty:

You also selectively ignore the words of the passage of Luke, and what you ignore is very telling:

Quote:
31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

You can give me strength, I can give you strength. What is telling is you taking this and reading a lot more into it… I know this because when I look at commentaries on the Apostles, such as I’ve cited, they tend to disagree with you.

Ghosty:

Yes, Peter will turn away, but when he turns back he has a unique commission!

It was given to him, first, but later to all the Apostles.

Such as…

Cyprian

Treatise I. On the Unity of the Church.

1. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that 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 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed nay sheep.” And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, “My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.” Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, “There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?”

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

Note: He states ‘…but the beginning proceeds from unity’ to emphasise that all the Apostles acted as ‘one’. He emphasises this further on that the unity is a brotherhood…

“5. And this unity we ought firmly to hold and assert, especially those of us that are bishops who preside in the Church, that we may also prove the episcopate itself to be one and undivided. Let no one deceive the brotherhood by a falsehood: let no one corrupt the truth of the faith by perfidious prevarication. The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole.”

(Ibid)

Ghosty:

Furthermore, saying that the Church is built on the faith of the Peter really does nothing to undermine the Church’s claim of Papal Infallibility, so it’s a moot point. Whether the rock is Peter, Jesus, or the hill on which they were both standing is splitting hairs; authority is given to Peter as an individual that is only given to others corporately with Peter. The fact that Peter’s name is changed to identify with the “rock of faith” or the “rock of Christ” is extremely telling. In fact, I think the objections to Peter being “the rock” prove too much, if anything. Rather than Peter simply being the foundation of the Church, he becomes synonymous with the whole faith, and with Christ himself.

An odd argument to make. You both want to argue against the association with Peter (that he is the rock), but for it, that he is singled out. How then is he singled out? A unique theory awaits the telling.

(Peter is not the foundation of the Church, his faith is, hence ‘the rock’ issue is important - but I await your details of this everything at once argument)

end part 1

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

The point on Constantinople proves little if anything also. The Catholic Church does not argue that the authority of the Roman Church is based on any royal privileges, so the lifting of the status of Constantinople as the “Royal City” means nothing more than a recognition that the secular power of the empire rests there.

I know the Catholic Church doesn’t make this argument. That the Catholic church rejects an argument doesn’t mean that the argument is pointless at all You seem to think so, I know. I don’t. Thus the rebuttal “We don’t argue that” is not really that strong. I would argue that Rome was accorded such a high place because of its position as a major power. I have cited evidence that Peter is not viewed by the early church as the first pope. You believe it’s because it’s based on the foundation on Peter (although you take away that as well by saying that Jesus calling him ‘the rock’ (or not) is not an issue)

Ghosty:

This leaves out the controversy concerning this Canon, which I don’t have time to address currently, but I will leave it to others with the resources at their fingertips.

Circular reasoning aside*, I look forward to constructive rebuttal.

No more “We disagree with that, therefore it’s not a valid argument” (paraphrasing of your ‘retort’)

Turning to Cyrpian again, we can see certainly that Peter didn’t act as a primate, even if he was the first to be ‘chosen’.

3 … For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy, and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.

Cyprian - Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics

ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm#P6226_1969381

 

[Montalban]

PhilVaz:

Montalban, thanks for acknowledging your mistake. Cyprian is not Ambrose.

Indeed. And I posted this very same thing more than a year ago on another thread, and no one picked up on it.

PhilVaz:

Your quote from Ambrose:
“Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavor then, thyself to be a rock – thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is built upon the rock.” (St. Ambrose, On the Incarnation)
BTW, the above does not say “Peter is NOT the rock.” Look at it carefully. What it is saying is that it is not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that the gates of hell should not prevail against. In other words, Peter himself is a sinner, and he could personally fall (not in faith or teaching, but in sin), and deny Christ (as we know he did in the Gospels).

Actually in the context of the Scripture to which it refers, it is saying Peter is not the rock. For Jesus said “On this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it”, and here’s Ambrose saying that that foudation is not Peter, but the faith Peter declares. I can’t find anything more clearer than his words “for it was not the person”, lest ‘not’ was an effort at sarcasm as in… You are a great guy, not!

PhilVaz:

The Catechism as I have pointed out repeatedly in this thread and others, says Jesus is the Rock and foundation (cf. 1 Cor 3:11; 10:4; 1 Peter 2:4ff), Peter’s faith and confession is the rock and foundation, etc. But we also insist Peter is the rock and foundation in Matthew 16, and so does Ambrose.

Great for you saying this, but Ambrose clearly says it was not the person but the faith.

PhilVaz:

My counter from same:
“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church …’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man (Luke 22:31-32) to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church (Matt 16:18)?” (St. Ambrose, The Faith 4:5 [AD 379]).
Ambrose explicitly says of Peter “whom he [Christ] called the rock, thereby declaring him [Peter] to be the foundation of the Church.” You can’t get any more explicit. So do read a little bit deeper. There is much more, but this one quote from Ambrose is enough to show Peter is the rock. Again we don’t deny Christ is the Rock in another (greater) sense.

Actually, no. Your quote is merely Ambrose re-stating the gospel words of Jesus “You are peter and on this rock…”, which as we know ‘the rock’ is his faith… which he already stated in the “On the Incarnation”, otherwise you have Ambrose contradicting himself. He is in fact saying You are Peter and on this rock of your faith"
Which thus puts it in accord with Augustine…
One Father, Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3).
Whelton, pp27-8. also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-07/npnf1-07-141.htm#P4618_2490251

Cyprian added to this in saying “Rock is the unity of faith, not the person Peter”

(De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).

Ibid, p28. and at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664 (I note that Whelton’s translation is slightly different)

 

[Montalban]

PhilVaz:

All your material on John Chrysostom has been pretty well demolished by John Chapman.

Ouch. The appeal to the ‘it’s been addressed elsewhere’ persists.

PhilVaz:

He deals with 90 passages from Chrysostom (all he could find). And you’re right, I’m not really interested in debating if we are just going to copy/paste large gobs of material to each other.

A very subtle re-working of what I said. I said that you and I differ in that I quote the original people, such as Ambrose, Cyprian, John Chrysostomon, and you refer to other people’s arguments - although you don’t even post these. Even when I cite something as quoted in Whelton, I try to cite where you can find an e-version of it, so that you can read it yourself, even if I do make the occasional error in doing so.

PhilVaz:

More analysis on a small bit of writing is more appropriate. We are not writing books in here.
Perhaps I will find Whelton’s book since it appears to be your main source. And I’ll buy Likoudis rebuttal. I have his Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism but not these newer books.
Phil P

Actually my main source is my own essay on the matter. It currently is about 67 pages long, of which half is structured into a workable piece. I started this from several Catholic friends listing quotes from Orthodox/early writers whom they claim refute Orthodoxy (see Post #5 where-in I cite several sites that have these lists). I tried to research these quotes, and found that they fell into three categories…
a) ones that are out of context (see Appendix below)
b) ones that are half quotes (see e.g. The Tome of Leo in post #5)
c) ones that I can’t find to test. Judging on the track record (of a) and b) quotes) I am prepared to assume c) quotes fall into the either the above two.
From this point I then purchased Whelton’s book to help as a reasech tool. Thus you have me working the other way around. First came the bombardment of hundreds of quotes from three different Catholics! Next came an effort to research this impressive list. Then came tools for research.

Appendix
A Catholic web-site[1] states a ‘proof’ is the opening address of St. Ignatius of Antioch to the Romans, which reads;

“Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the

church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her

that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of

success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name

of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness.”[2]

Again note… ‘to the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans’, that is, to the area around Rome! Note also ‘to the church that is beloved…’ not ‘to the church that is MOST beloved…’

Notes on Appendix​

[1] newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm
[2] earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html

PS
christiantruth.com/stephenray.html

Has a great deal of John Chrysostomon stuff, since the ‘elsewhere’ method has currency