Peter the rock/Catholic Chair

Re: Understanding what all is involved in and where it all comes from, regarding
Peter the rock/the Catholic C.'s Pope’s chair/

meaning I am interested to find out why the CC thinks they are descended from
Peter’s authority and why they think Peter’s is the only one that can have say?

for example, re the Church Fathers, the ones I looked up on this point
have diff. things to say,.Jerome said Peter is the rock, .
Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyprian and Origen said no, they didn’t think so.

I am not a Catholic but I want to know why Catholic scholars have decided this, based on
what exactly.

It is about authority…here is journal written by former protestant, that should give you a start…chnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/authority.pdf

And it is also about the name change: See these in the Bible and the commands after the name change:

Abram to Abraham……Gen 17:15….Neither shall thy name be called any more Abram: but thou shalt be called Abraham: because I have made thee a father of many nations.

Jacob to Israel….Gen 35……. 10And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel………. 11And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins;
Simon to Cephas/Peter…Matt 16…17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter,** and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[c] will not overcome it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[d] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[e] loosed in heaven.”**

The Pope isn’t the only one who can have a say, though. All the bishops in union with Him have their own Apostolic authority and the Holy Father consults with them and they with him. The Pope is the final authority, though, as the successor of St. Peter when questions regarding Faith and Morals arise that must be addressed to the whole Church.

Regarding the “Rock” here are some Protestant scholars on the subject of “Rock”:

Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at 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 a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)

Oscar Cullman:

The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . 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. (Theological Dictionary ofthe New Testament, vol. 6, Eerdmans, 98–99, 108)

“The meaning is, ‘You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter, I will build my church.’ Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, ‘And I say to you, your are Kepha and on this Kepha I will build my church.’ Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.” William Hendriksen, Reformed Protestant theologian, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary and member of the Christian Reformed Church, writing in the New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.

Gerhard Maier, conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian:

"Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which - in accordance with the words of the text - applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis."TheChurch in the Gospel of Matthew; Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate, Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.

"In Aramaic, ‘Peter’ and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here) they are cognate terms that were used interchangeably by this period. For the idea of a person as the foundation on which something is built, cf. Isaiah 51:1-2; Ephesians 2:20 (the promise is made to Peter because Peter was the one who confessed Jesus, v. 16). Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer’s Grove, IL; Intravarsity Press, 1993), 90.

You’ll find a number of articles re the Papacy and the authority of Peter at this website:

catholic-legate.com/Apologetics/ThePapacy/Articles.aspx

I hope you find these helpful.

You have been misinformed. Catholics do not believe that Peter was the only one who had a say nor do we believe that only the Pope “has a say”. It is not only the Pope who leads the Church-- teaching authority is given to the Magisterium- which consists of the Bishops in union with the Pope. One might say that the Pope has* final* say, much as Peter had a final say at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:12) when he spoke about gentiles being circumcised; after Peter spoke the entire assembly was silenced on the matter. But just as the Council of Jerusalem and other councils that followed, the Pope works in union with Bishops.

Here is a link which shows the Scriptural meaning of what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom and established His Church upon Peter. The Scriptural evidence of the authority given to Peter is plentiful. Here and here are links with several of the Church Fathers comments on Peter’s primacy.

I, for one, certainly wish and hope for the reunification of the apostolic Church (Catholic and Orthodox) where primacy just won’t be an issue because the united Church would lead their flock together. But the protestants will have a lot to think about if they want to reunite with the apostolic Church. As it stands, with protestantism it is a free for all on who takes authority-- there is definitely not a scriptural basis for that, nor is there any support for it in the Church Fathers. All of the letters of the New Testament and the bulk of the writings of the Church Fathers were written to a hierarchal, organized Church. This fact seems lost on modern day non-Catholics…

Thank you for what you all wrote above. I will take some time and read it over.

In the meantime Revelation 21 came to mind, which talks about the city of the New Jerusalem. The foundation is described as stone, or rock, and it is precious stone,.
Jasper is the first one, and in another place I checked to see which apostle is thought to be related to that stone, and it is Peter, they think, relates to Jasper stone, in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

I thought this was interesting.

Bible quote from Rev 21:

And ahe carried me away in the Spirit to ba great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, 11 chaving the glory of God, dits radiance elike a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.

And the wall of the city had twelve gfoundations, and hon them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

The foundations of the wall of the city were adorned with every kind of jewel. The first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst.

Mathew, Mark, Luke and Acts all list Peter as first in order in the disciples,…

first in order in the high wall that surrounds and protects the great city,
is the stone Jasper, which the text reads is the foundation of the wall.

Here are the Church Father quotes that I found to date;

Origen: i.“And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. 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,’ 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’? 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,’ 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,’ 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,’ etc, . . . 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.” (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

Cyprian : i."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 my 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." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)
(year 200 AD approx.)

Chrysostom “Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples” (Commentary on Galatians,

1, vv. 1-3). How then is Peter alone the primary apostle?
(approx 350 A.D.)

Jerome :i."Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact. The fruitful soil of Rome,

when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold . . . As I follow no leader save Christ, so I

communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the

church is built! . . . If you think fit enact a decree; and then I shall not hesitate to speak of three hypostases. Order a

new creed to supersede the Nicene; and then, whether we are Arians or orthodox, one confession will do for us all . . . But

may the faith of Rome never come to such a pass! May the devout hearts of your people never be infected with such unholy

doctrines! Let us be satisfied to speak of one substance and of three subsisting persons–perfect, equal, coeternal. Let us

keep to one hypostasis, if such be your pleasure, and say nothing of three." (Letter 15:1-2, 15:4)
(350 A.D. approx)

Augustine : i."In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ . . .

But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I

will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of

the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock,

and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But

‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader

decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)
(approx 400 A.D.)

BeingSaved…you may want to use an online Bible when you post passages, it is easier. You can use this…
biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+21&version=NRSVCE

REv 21:

16 The city lies foursquare, its length the same as its width; and he measured the city with his rod, fifteen hundred miles;[h] its length and width and height are equal. 17 He also measured its wall, one hundred forty-four cubits* by human measurement, which the angel was using. 18 The wall is built of jasper, while the city is pure gold, clear as glass. 19 The foundations of the wall of the city are adorned with every jewel; the first was jasper, the second sapphire, the third agate, the fourth emerald, 20 the fifth onyx, the sixth carnelian, the seventh chrysolite, the eighth beryl, the ninth topaz, the tenth chrysoprase, the eleventh jacinth, the twelfth amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates are twelve pearls, each of the gates is a single pearl, and the street of the city is pure gold, transparent as glass.

The foundation is described as stone, or rock, and it is precious stone,.
Jasper is the first one, and in another place I checked to see which apostle is thought to be related to that stone, and it is Peter, they think, relates to Jasper stone, in the foundation of the New Jerusalem.

This is an interesting thought. Can you provide the link you read it from?*

no link, it was me thinking about that part of Rev. 21 about the disciples being
the foundations stones, and Peter being called a stone upon which something was to be built, so therefore naturally, of actually the surrounding high wall of the city, protecting it,…

oh, you mean the link about the stones,…I think it is a Prot. site, not sure though,

spiritandtruthministries.org/Spirit%20and%20Truth%20Ministries/Other%20Science%20and%20Bible/Precious%20Stones%20in%20the%20New%20Jerusalem.html

Thank you, I will read them.

thank you Frances

I don’t know the details of what the others you mentioned say, but St.John Chrysostom said that Christ appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair (I.E. of the diocese) but of the world.* With so clear an endorsement from someone you put on the opposite side I think that casts doubt on all of your claims. I’m afraid I have to ask you to cite sources.

Homilies on the Gospel of John: Homily 88.

For, said they, Peter and James and John, the chiefs of the Apostles and the companions of Christ, forbade them not. Now in fact they did not forbid these things, but this was not by way of delivering positive doctrine, but in condescension to the weakness of the Jewish believers, which condescension Paul had no need of when preaching to the Gentiles; but when he was in Judæa, he employed it himself also. But these deceivers, by withholding the causes both of Paul’s condescension and that of his brethren, misled the simpler ones, saying that he was not to be tolerated, for he appeared but yesterday, while Peter and his colleagues were from the first—that he was a disciple of the Apostles, but they of Christ—that he was single, but they were many, and pillars of the Church. They accused him too of acting a part; saying, that this very man who forbids circumcision observes the rite elsewhere, and preaches one way to you and another way to others. Since Paul then saw the whole Galatian people in a state of excitement, a flame kindled against their Church, and the edifice shaken and tottering to its fall, filled with the mixed feelings of just anger and despondency, (which he has expressed in the words, I could wish to be present with you now, and to change my voice, Galatians 4:20) he writes the Epistle as an answer to these charges. This is his aim from the very commencement, for the underminers of his reputation had said, The others were disciples of Christ but this man of the Apostles. Wherefore he begins thus, Paul, an Apostle not from men, neither through man. For, these deceivers, as I was saying before, had said that this man was the last of all the Apostles and was taught by them, for Peter, James, and John, were both first called, and held a primacy among the disciples, and had also received their doctrines from Christ Himself; and that it was therefore fitting to obey them rather than this man; and that they forbad not circumcision nor the observance of the Law. By this and similar language and by depreciating Paul, and exalting the honor of the other Apostles, though not spoken for the sake of praising them, but of deceiving the Galatians, they induced them to adhere unseasonably to the Law. Hence the propriety of his commencement. As they disparaged his doctrine, saying it came from men, while that of Peter came from Christ, he immediately addresses himself to this point, declaring himself an apostle not from men, neither through man. It was Ananias who baptized him, but it was not he who delivered him from the way of error and initiated him into the faith; but Christ Himself sent from on high that wondrous voice, whereby He inclosed him in his net. For Peter and his brother, and John and his brother, He called when walking by the seaside, Matthew 4:18 but Paul after His ascension into heaven. Acts 9:3-4 And just as these did not require a second call, but straightway left their nets and all that they had, and followed Him, so this man at his first vocation pressed vigorously forward, waging, as soon as he was baptized, an implacable war with the Jews. In this respect he chiefly excelled the other Apostles, as he says, I labored more abundantly than they all; 1 Corinthians 15:10 at present, however, he makes no such claim, but is content to be placed on a level with them. Indeed his great object was, not to establish any superiority for himself, but, to overthrow the foundation of their error. The not being from men has reference to all alike for the Gospel’s root and origin is divine, but the not being through man is peculiar to the Apostles; for He called them not by men’s agency, but by His own.

This is his commentary on Gallatians 1 v 1-3 starting from the first mention together of Peter James and John to after the last mention of Peter. I can’t find your quote there. I can see that if this is all one had to go on one might ask the question in your quote, but St. John Chrysostom doesn’t.

This misquote in your favor of your position puts even more suspicion on your claims. I assume that you didn’t do it on purpose, but at the least you are getting your information from a bad source.

You dont seem to see the context of these quotes. You are looking at them like many people use the bible for proof text . You have to understand the context of the statements made by the Church Fathers. You cant just lift a single line and make a conclusion from that. In the proper context, none of these statements reject Peter as the visible focal point of the Church hierarchy. In fact, in their proper context, they in fact concede Peters unique role. In fact , in one quote, you are quite right to say that Christ did give all the Apostles the same power to forgive sins. But , that same Father later in the paragraph says that in regards to the Keys of the Kingdom this is in fact a unique attribute regarding Peter. The Church affirms that ALL the Apostles, and their bishop and priest successors were given the Sacrament of Reconciliation and confirmation that this Father is referring to , but they were NOT given the Keys of Kingdom. That is unique to Peter.

Peter is named in the New Testament 195 times. The next closest? The Apostle whom Jesus loved - John. 29 times. The others even less than that. Peter is always listed first, Judas last (Mt 10:2-5, Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-17, Acts 1:13). It is “Peter and the rest…” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37). Peter as spokesman (Mt 18:21, Mk 8:29, Lk 8:45, 12:41, Jn 6:69). As to his primacy, There is Mt 16:13-20, Mt 14:24-33, Ml 16:7, Luke 5 (Peter’s boat), Lk 22:31-32, Lk 24:33-35, Jn 20:6, Jn 21:15-19. Additionally, Christ told only Peter to remove the coin from the fish’s mouth to pay the temple tax for Him and Peter Mt 17:26. It goes on and on and on. There is simply an overwhelming amount of scripture which points to Peter’s primacy. And, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is shown by, among other things, Pope Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, mediating a dispute there. But, they had their own Bishop in Corinth! What was Clement’s role, other than as successor to Peter?

For those who claim the position of chief of the apostles was invented, the chair fabricated out of thin air, we will need to know who fabricated it and when.

Based on the text of Matthew 1:25. And not just Catholics…Protestant scholars think Peter was the Rock, also. Here are just a few of the two dozen quotes I have on file:

TWENTY-FIVE PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK
(Listed Alphabetically)

“You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter)." (John 1:42)

“Jesus replied, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." (Matthew 16:17-19)

W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence…The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Albert Barnes (Nineteenth-Century Presbyterian)

“The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: ‘Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock. . . . I see that you are worthy of the name and will be a distinguished support of my religion” [Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament, 170].

Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed)

“The play on words – ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ – requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical – Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world…” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)

John Broadus (Baptist)

“As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that ‘upon this rock’ means upon thee. . . . It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter’s confession”

“Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.”

“But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” [Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356JPK page 20]

Craig L. Blomberg (Baptist)

“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22 (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252, JPK pages 31-32)

(cont.)

M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ)

“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros)… There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church…On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . 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). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)

J. Knox Chamblin (Contemporary Presbyterian)

"By the words ‘this rock’ Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. " (“Matthew” in Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, 742).

Oscar Cullman (Lutheran)

“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros…Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection…The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story…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. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)

Let me know if you need the rest. :thumbsup:


Citing Sources;
Search pulling Fathers opinions, positive and negative, on the topic,…
asking for limited number,

Here is where each Father’s writing is found within their works;

Origen, from the Commentary on Mathew, 12:10-11,

Cyprian, ‘On the Unity of the Church 4’,

Chrysostom, ‘Commentary on Galations 1, vv 1-3’

Jerome 'Letter 15:1-2, 15:4,

Augustine 'The Retractions, 1:20:1

I made a brief request, Fathers for and Fathers not for,
and just copied and pasted on a notepad what came up, and read later, then posted here,…
I have not read the Fathers myself, so I would not recognize it from what was inside.

I will search more and try to verify,…

You are saying the place listed as where this quote is found is incorrect?

I don’t really have a position, as such, even though you can tell from my info, I am not Catholic,…I am in a non-Catholic group because I was born in one, and became born again here, and am growing spiritually here.

I am actually trying to understand what our differences are and why, and look into Catholic claims and where they come from.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.