Who was the Rock in Matthew 16:18?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Prodigal_Son1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Lib Christian: I wish you and Tweety would put on your glasses and read and understand what being Catholic means. Catholic does mean universal, but it also means unity and that all believe and accept the same tenets, doctrines, and dogmas, without exception.
Picking and choosing, disagreeing with, or objecting to, any of these tenets, doctrines and dogmas no longer makes one a Catholic.

P.S. Will I ever get an answer to my post #60?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
Sigh. Then you need to discuss your disagreement with Church teaching on what defines a Catholic with the Church I guess. 🤷

Post 60 was a question for tweety. I’m not her.
 
ECFs on the Primacy of Peter

**Clement of Alexandria **

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’” [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] (*Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? *21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

**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]).

**Letter of Clement to James **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen (248 A.D.)

“f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

**Ephraim **

“[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 first-born 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]).

**Ambrose **

“[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 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]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Gregory of Nyssa

“The leader and coryphaeus of the Apostolic choir…The head of the Apostles.” (Gregory of Nyssa, A.D. 371, Alt. Orat. De S. Steph. tom. iii. p. 730, 4, in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri – The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 51.

**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 over-throw 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]).

**Augustine **

“I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by…and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate.” (Against the Letter of Mani, 5 [A.D. 395]).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” (To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 [A.D. 397]).

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?” (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).
 
Would anyone query this? Or is it just filler on your behalf!

**Jesus spoke , in the instance above, to all His disciples, have you noticed?
Read Christ’s utterances in John xx 21/23 in this passage it is made very clear there was no dependence on Peter!
As for Cyprian ? “To all the apostles after his resurrection, he gives equal power and says,'As the Father sent Me so I send you.**”
All through his writings Cyprian held the belief that authority,[magisterium,] was held in the collectivity of the Bishops.


As I have said before the question is not about Peter? For Catholics ,Peter’s place in the scheme of things is secure! What needs proving, by the Romanists, is that the Papacy enjoyed, or inherited any of the special priviliges supposedly held by Peter above and beyond the other apostles! There is nothing in the first 300 yrs, There is nothing in Revelation ,Scripture or Holy Tradition!
Please, Sir, we are Latin Rite Catholics:p;);):confused:Carlan
 
IWelcome Justin, for me, reading through the threads I believe I have learned and continue to grow even in my old age. I thank Catholic Answers!

In my frustration of the ones who love to argue, I must remember to offer it and them up in prayer.👍:)Carlan
When people are so sure only THEY KNOW the Truth even though in the end it all comes down to FAITH, then arguments can result. But it is sad. Take for instance people who insist someone is not a Catholic when their Church defines otherwise. Very odd to me how someone can say they profess all the Catholic Church teaches and then disagrees with the Church’s definition of who’s Catholic. At least tweety admits she does not agree with all the church says. 🤷
 
I never did understand these threads. There is only 3 primary reasons someone reads CA: To learn; to grow in the Catholic faith or to argue. We are never going to get anywhere with the latter. It’s the thrill of the chase syndrome. Well, I’m getting ready to meet my Lord and thank Him for saving my sorry soul. Hope you are too.
Hi Justin, or not to argue per se but to discuss. The problem results when people think only THEY HAVE the Truth when in the end it comes down to faith. And then it’s made more difficult when some insist on making themselves holier than thou, insist they follow all the teachings of the Catholic Church but then go about defining who a Catholic is in opposition to how their church defines it. I agree though. Most are not going to have their faith changed. Oh well. That’s life. God :blessyou: and let us all :gopray: for one another. Peace. :amen:
 
When people are so sure only THEY KNOW the Truth even though in the end it all comes down to FAITH, then arguments can result. But it is sad. Take for instance people who insist someone is not a Catholic when their Church defines otherwise. Very odd to me how someone can say they profess all the Catholic Church teaches and then disagrees with the Church’s definition of who’s Catholic. At least tweety admits she does not agree with all the church says. 🤷
Lib-

You responded to my Post #338, but you didn’t actually interact with it.

What do you think about the three points that the author made?
 
Lib-

You responded to my Post #338, but you didn’t actually interact with it.

What do you think about the three points that the author made?
Hi Randy, sorry I did respond but for further interaction, my thinking on the 3 pts…

A dissenter denies infallibilty? True if they are dissenting from something considered infallible.

A dissenter questions? True

A dissenter then takes up a position rejecting all Catholic teaching and becomes a Protestant? No not if they don’t reject all Catholic teaching. Do they protest, yes? Are they Protestant and not Catholic? No, not according to how the church defines Catholic. Now if someone wants to leave, then joins a Protestant church and calls themselves a Protestant, so be it. But if they want to call themselves a Catholic, they are. I know there is something about having to write the bishop where you were baptized for a formal defection. And then even in that case I’ve read it only applies to being released from Catholic marriage decrees. But still a Catholic. Excommunicated? Still a Catholic. Just are told you can’t receive the sacraments. But still a Catholic.

Hope that helps. God bless.
 
Lib Christian: I wish you and Tweety would put on your glasses and read and understand what being Catholic means. Catholic does mean universal, but it also means unity and that all believe and accept the same tenets, doctrines, and dogmas, without exception.
Picking and choosing, disagreeing with, or objecting to, any of these tenets, doctrines and dogmas no longer makes one a Catholic.

P.S. Will I ever get an answer to my post #60?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
I cannot exactly come to a conclusion as to what you want an answer to?
 
40.png
luckyfredsdad:
There is nothing in the first 300 yrs, There is nothing in Revelation ,Scripture or Holy Tradition!

Historically incorrect. Carroll’s History series documents it well the primacy of the pope from the begining.
 
Javi, like tweety I’m not exactly sure what you want an answer to since it’s all been answered. But I’m not speaking for tweety here just myself. But maybe it will help a bit. Simon said Christ was Messiah the Son of God. Christ said you are Peter and upon this rock (what Peter had just said) I will build my church. You and I weren’t there. But why He changed the name might be because Simon had just professed the rock. And I suppose it’s possible in the 1st 1500 yrs there was straying from what Christ meant His Church to be. Anyway hope that helps.
 
Javi, like tweety I’m not exactly sure what you want an answer to since it’s all been answered. But I’m not speaking for tweety here just myself. But maybe it will help a bit. Simon said Christ was Messiah the Son of God. Christ said you are Peter and upon this rock (what Peter had just said) I will build my church. You and I weren’t there. But why He changed the name might be because Simon had just professed the rock. And I suppose it’s possible in the 1st 1500 yrs there was straying from what Christ meant. Anyway hope that helps.
Good Morning Lib and thanks for the answer. I couln’t really figure out what Javi wanted that hadn’t been answered. Thanks for the mail. God Bless
 
Good Morning Lib and thanks for the answer. I couln’t really figure out what Javi wanted that hadn’t been answered. Thanks for the mail. God Bless
🤷 But you’re welcome. Good morning to you too. I’m headin out now for the afternoon at least. But have a good day and God bless you too.
 
Javi, like tweety I’m not exactly sure what you want an answer to since it’s all been answered. But I’m not speaking for tweety here just myself. But maybe it will help a bit. Simon said Christ was Messiah the Son of God. Christ said you are Peter and upon this rock (what Peter had just said) I will build my church. You and I weren’t there. But why He changed the name might be because Simon had just professed the rock. And I suppose it’s possible in the 1st 1500 yrs there was straying from what Christ meant His Church to be. Anyway hope that helps.
Lib-

This is incorrect. Jesus is not referring to “what Peter had just said”; He was referring to Peter himself, and Protestant scholars have concluded that the Catholic interpretatioin of this passage is correct. Carson wrote:

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos (“stone” of almost any size). (D.A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
Protestant Oscar Cullman wrote:
The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra petra and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected. (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, (Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968), 6:98, 108.)
 
Hi Randy, sorry I did respond but for further interaction, my thinking on the 3 pts…

A dissenter denies infallibilty? True if they are dissenting from something considered infallible.

A dissenter questions? True

A dissenter then takes up a position rejecting all Catholic teaching and becomes a Protestant? No not if they don’t reject all Catholic teaching. Do they protest, yes? Are they Protestant and not Catholic? No, not according to how the church defines Catholic. Now if someone wants to leave, then joins a Protestant church and calls themselves a Protestant, so be it. But if they want to call themselves a Catholic, they are.
So, by your reasoning, if a Mormon wants to call himself a Christian, he’s a Christian?

Are there no objective standards?
 
A dissenter then takes up a position rejecting all Catholic teaching and becomes a Protestant? No not if they don’t reject all Catholic teaching. Do they protest, yes? Are they Protestant and not Catholic? No, not according to how the church defines Catholic. Now if someone wants to leave, then joins a Protestant church and calls themselves a Protestant, so be it. But if they want to call themselves a Catholic, they are. I know there is something about having to write the bishop where you were baptized for a formal defection. And then even in that case I’ve read it only applies to being released from Catholic marriage decrees. But still a Catholic. Excommunicated? Still a Catholic. Just are told you can’t receive the sacraments. But still a Catholic.
Please cite your source. Or is this your own original work?
 
Lib-

This is incorrect. Jesus is not referring to “what Peter had just said”; He was referring to Peter himself, and Protestant scholars have concluded that the Catholic interpretatioin of this passage is correct.
Ok so even if some Protestants have concluded such, doesn’t mean there wasn’t and isn’t straying among the successors which needed/needs corrected/reformed. Christ can correct things so the gates of hell do not prevail.
 
Some Catholics BELIEVE their Church will not go astray. There’s a difference. And no, it doesn’t necessarily mean if someone believes otherwise that they believe Jesus abandoned His Church. Jesus would never do that. He told us the gates of hell would not prevail against it. It really depends on what your belief is about the definition of church. If you believe it to be the institution called the Roman Catholic Church, then you might be correct. But if like other Christians, one believes the Church is the the entire body of Christ believers, then Christ I’m certain would be capable of correction and reformation when needed, to in fact ensure the gates of hell do not prevail against it.
You must believe that merely acting within the “influence” of the Bible is satisfactory for salvation. So you must agree that Christian denominations who express “tolerance”, particularly in regards to lets say -same sex marriage, speak the one truth of God…

Or perhaps there are many forms of the truth, depending on what Christians can “relate” to depending on them personally?

If you’re right in saying: “Christ is capable of correction and reformation”, then God must want levels of truth… Levels of Christianity.

But where is this in the Bible? Actually, I think the bible states the opposite…:confused:
 
I cannot exactly come to a conclusion as to what you want an answer to?
Have you read my post #60? I have asked why did Jesus name Simon Bar-Johnah as Peter, if Peter is not the rock of the Church. If you say that he was named Peter because of the rock of his faith, then I say that it was not necessary to rename him. Again what was Jesus’ reason if not to say that Peter was the rock ( foundation ) on which Jesus ( the cornerstone ) would build His Church?

PAX DOMINI :signofcross:

Shalom Aleichem
 
What is “rock”

If Peter’s Faith or Peters will, or Peters spirit, or Peters whatever is a rock… What is rock?

IN any case, why should this rock crumble. Rocks are made of tiny grains of sand… WHY BREAK IT UP ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top