Did Pope Gregory VII really write "Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolpho"?

[homoreus]

(this was actually posted before elsewhere)

Hi folks,

I'd just like to know if Pope Gregory VII really wrote "Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolpho" and if so, how I can reconcile this with our teaching that the Rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is Peter, and not Christ.

There's a whole bunch of collateral attacks/defences I know of, but I don't know much about the quote itself, e.g., is it even for real?

Thanks to all of ya,

Anthony

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by homoreus

(this was actually posted before elsewhere)

Hi folks,

I'd just like to know if Pope Gregory VII really wrote "Petra dedit Petro, Petrus diadema Rudolpho" and if so, how I can reconcile this with our teaching that the Rock mentioned in Matthew 16:18 is Peter, and not Christ.

There's a whole bunch of collateral attacks/defences I know of, but I don't know much about the quote itself, e.g., is it even for real?

Thanks to all of ya,

Anthony

## Christ is the Rock- therefore, Peter is too.

Think of it like this Christ said "I am the light of the world" - He also said to the disciples "You are the light of the world."

Both are lights - Christ because He is the Source; the disciples, because they shine out witgh a light they have received St. Paul calls Christians "lights in the world"

So with:

Christ the Rock and Peter the Rock
Christ forgives sins - so do the disciples

In short, He gives to Christians a share in:

His Sonship of the Father
His Priesthood
His Kingship
His Cross
His Life
His trampling satan underfoot
His character as Rock
His mission to teach
His being Bishop
His Holiness
His Messiahship
His Resurrection
His obedience to the Father
His Spirit
His Sufferings
His Temptations
His Death
His Baptism
His Throne
His Glory

- and so on: time after time, His followers are given a share in what belongs properly to Him. What He has and is by nature, they, we, have by His gift. He keeps nothing whatever back: for Love never does - that is why we are not exempted from anything He did not escape. That is why Christianity is stamped with the Cross of Christ.

So His giving to Peter and the others what belonged to Him by His origin, is part of a pattern; He receives from the Father, only to give what He receives to men, so that they may give to others and to the Father through Him, by serving others in the power of the Spirit. Who is the Father's Gift to Him.

In short, the Father gives Himself to us totally in His Son Whom He Loves: God Himself cannot do more than that. The Son shows the Father to us; and our communion with Christ in His Spirit, is the best way in which we can respond to the self-giving of God; He has gioven His All - therefore, He gives to us by helping us give our all too.

And the gift to Peter and the others, is a example of this Divinne Giving, and its reply from - in this case - Peter. Because authoritry in the Church is meant to help us become Christian, Christlike; so it is very different from any earthly authority. ##

[homoreus]

Thanks, Gottle.

The problem is, the Catholic interpretation is that both "petra" and "Petros" in Matthew 16 refer to Peter. It is the anti-Catholic view that petra = Christ and Petros = Peter, the conclusion therefore being that Peter is NOT the Rock.

Although I can accept that in many ways there was identity between Christ and Peter (or the apostles), Matthew 16 is seen by our Church as one where there is in fact no identity between Christ and Peter - for there, the authority from Christ to Peter was not described as something already given and already shared. Rather it was in the process of being given.

By logical necessity therefore, there cannot be any shared identity between Christ and Peter - Christ is the builder who builds His Church upon Peter the Rock. If Christ were also the Rock (as he is in other different - and therefore non-comparable - imageries) then the implication is that Peter is not being given a blessing/the authority.

Or so I think ...

Cheers,

Anthony