Protestant Scholars on Peter the Rock


#1

PROTESTANT SCHOLARS ON PETER THE ROCK

“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)

“[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.” (W.F. Albright (Protestant) and C.S. Mann, The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (David Hill (Presbyterian), The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

“Jesus now sums up Peter’s significance in a name, Peter . . . It describes not so much Peter’s character (he did not prove to be ‘rock-like’ in terms of stability or reliability), but his function, as the foundation-stone of Jesus’ church. The feminine word for ‘rock’, ‘petra’, is necessarily changed to the masculine ‘petros’ (stone) to give a man’s name, but the word-play is unmistakable (and in Aramaic would be even more so, as the same form ‘kepha’ would occur in both places). It is only Protestant overreaction to the Roman Catholic claim . . . that what is here said of Peter applies also to the later bishops of Rome, that has led some to claim that the ‘rock’ here is not Peter at all but the faith which he has just confessed. The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus’ declaration about Peter as v.16 was Peter’s declaration about Jesus . . . It is to Peter, not to his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied . . . Peter is to be the foundation-stone of Jesus’ new community . . . which will last forever.” (R.T. France (Anglican); in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985], vol. 1: Matthew, 254, 256)

“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 . . .” (D.A. Carson (Baptist); in Gaebelein, Frank E., Gen. ed., Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368}


#2

So, do these Protestant scholars support the concept of Papal supremacy?


#3

Take the idea of Papacy out for a sec…

What it does support is that Peter was the first among the Apostles.

Not talking about Papacy (though for catholics one and the same)

As a Protestant, is it possible, based on the biblical evidence, that at a minimum, Peter WAS intituted as the leader of the early church?

In Christ


#4

Fathers on Peter’s Confession As The Rock

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. (The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327.)

For when Nathaniel said, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ Christ replies, ‘Because I said unto thee, I saw thee under the fig-tree, believest thou? Thou shalt see greater things than these.’ Now what is the question arising from this passage? It is this. Peter, when after so many miracles and such high doctrine he confessed that, ‘Thou art the Son of God’ (Matt. Xvi.16), is called ‘blessed,’ as having received the revelation from the Father; while Nathanael, though he said the very same thing before seeing or hearing either miracles or doctrine, had no such word addressed to him, but as though he had not said so much as he ought to have said, is brought to things greater still. What can be the reason for this? It is, that Peter and Nathanael both spoke the same words, but not both with the same intention. Peter confessed Him to be ‘The Son of God’ but as being very God; Nathanael, as being mere man. And whence does this appear? From what he said after these words; for after, ‘Thou art the Son of God,’ he adds, ‘Thou art the King of Israel.’ But the Son of God is not ‘King of Israel’ only, but of all the world. And what I say is clear, not from this only, but also from what follows. For Christ added nothing more to Peter, but as though his faith were perfect, said, upon this confession He would build the Church; but in the other case He did nothing like this, but the contrary.( Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily XXI.1)

I know moreover that not only this thing saddens you, but also the fact that while others have obtained the churches by violence, you are meanwhile cast out from your places. For they hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you…But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic tradition, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able. On the contrary, they have rather been cut off from their attempts to do so. For thus it is written, ‘Thou art the Son of the Living God,’ Peter confessing it by revelation of the Father, and being told, ‘Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but My Father Who is in heaven,’ and the rest. No one therefore will ever prevail against your Faith, most beloved brethren.( Letters of Athanasius, Letter 29)

You are Peter and on this rock from which you have taken your name, that is, on myself, I will build my Church, upon that perfection of faith which you confessed I will build my Church by whose society of confession should anyone deviate although in himself he seems to do great things he does not belong to the building of my Church…Metaphorically it is said to him on this rock, that is, the Saviour which you confessed, the Church is to be built, who granted participation to the faithful confessor of his name.(Bede, Homily 23)

The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’(Jerome, Commentary on Amos )


#5

Fathers on Peter the Rock

“**lessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom…” Hilary de Poiters, On the Trinity, 6:20(A.D. 359).

“[F]or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest.” Optatus of Milevis, De Schismate Donatistorum, 7:3(A.D. 370).

"Peter bore the person of the church.” Augustine, Sermon 149:7 (inter A.D. 391-430).

“Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer.” Augustine, Psalmus contro Partem Donati (A.D. 393).

“(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples.” John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D. 407).

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“But you say, the Church was rounded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one (Peter) among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism.” Jerome, Against Jovinianus, 1 (A.D. 393).**


#6

More From the Fathers on Peter

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ.( Augustine, Sermon 97.3 )

The Lord said to Peter: on this rock I will build My Church…On this catholic confession of faith he establishes the faithful in life.58(Commentary on Ephesians, Ambrose)

‘It will not be moved’ is said about the Church to which alone that promise has been given: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ For the Church cannot be moved becauseit is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely, Christ the Lord (Expositions in the Psalms, Psalm 45.5,Cassiodorus )

But what are the other words which follow that saying of the Lord’s, with which He commends Peter? ‘And I,’ said He, ‘say unto thee, that thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Do you see how the saying of Peter is the faith of the Church? He then must of course be outside the Church, who does not hold the faith of the Church. ‘And to thee,’ saith the Lord, ‘I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ This faith deserved heaven: this faith received the keys of the heavenly kingdom. … He adds, ‘of hell shall not prevail against thee.’ The gates of hell are the belief or rather the misbelief of heretics. For widely as hell is separated from heaven, so widely is he who denies from him who confessed that Christ is God. ‘Whatsoever,’ He proceeds, ‘thou shalt bind on earth, shalt be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shalt be loosed also in heaven.’ The perfect faith of the Apostle somehow is given the power of Deity, that what it should bind or loose on earth, might be bound or loosed in heaven. For you then, who come against the Apostle’s faith, as you see that already you are bound on earth, it only remains that you should know that you are bound also in heaven.(The Seven Books of John Cassian, John Cassian )

For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things-Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, ‘You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith. (Commentary on Isaiah, Cyril of Alexandria)

‘And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. Then the channels of the sea were seen, and the foundations of the world were laid bear, at thy rebuke, O Lord, at the blast of thy nostrils’ (Ps. 18.14)…By ‘the foundations of the world,’ we shall understand the strength of God’s wisdom, by which, first, the order of the universe was established, and then, the world itself was founded-a world which will not be shaken. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that ‘the world’ is actually the Church of God, and that its ‘foundation’ is in the first place, that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded, as Scripture says: ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it’; and elsewhere: ‘The rock, moreover, was Christ.’ For, as the Apostle indicates with these words: ‘No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.’.(Commentary on the Psalm, Eusebius )

‘You are Christ, Son of the living God.’ Oh blessed mouth! Perfectly, blessed lips! … Rightly are you blessed, Simon son of Jonah…because neither flesh nor blood nor human mind, but my Father in heaven has revealed this divine and mysterious truth to you…This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the Church is founded. Against this the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons-for they will attack-will not prevail. (Homily on the Transfiguration, John of Damascus )


#7

The sword drills are not helpful. The point is that the Catholic position has always allowed for a multi-faceted interpretation of “the rock.” Contemporary Protestantism must deny the possiblity of St. Peter’s being “the rock” to substantiate their protest against the papacy.

Throughout Christendom, various meanings to many Scriptural passages are viable. The Catholic position does not say, “It must mean, A, but can not mean B, C, and D.” Thus, we can accept the writings of various Church fathers. Instead, the Catholic hermeneutic has always allowed for a robust understanding of God’s Word. Protestantism, on the other hand, must deny A and white knuckle B, C, and/or D to feel as though their case is valid.


#8

You are obviously someone who is vastly familiar with the writings of the Church Fathers having provided these quotes from your own research without “cutting and pasting” from websites - a practice which I know you abhore.

Evidently, from your postings in other threads, you believe that some of these Fathers (e.g. St. Athanasius, St. Augustine) subscribed to Sola Scriptura and considered it to be their rule of faith. Therefore, can you please name a Church Father who is “orthodox” in your eyes. That is to say, can you please name a Church Father (or any ancient Christian) who shares the same faith as you (i.e., Presbyterian / Evangelical Christianity)? After all, if there were Fathers who drew their faith from Scripture alone, and if you interpret the Scriptures correctly, then it serves to reason that they would arrive at the same faith as you (i.e., Presbyterian / Evangelical Christianity).

If some of these Fathers held to Sola Scriptura (as you do), and if the Bible is indeed a source of **objective **truth, then at least one of them must mirror the faith which you hold today…Ifyou are interpreting the Bible correctly, that is.

Therefore, can you name such a Father, Sola?

Thank you.


#9

No, I don’t abhore “cutting and pasting”. You are just one invalid assumption after another. Of course everyone cut-n-paste. My problem with you is that you don’t cut-n-paste to make a point, but instead you cut-n-paste entire argument. All of my arguments are my own. BTW, most of my quotes do not come from websites. I have accumulated many quotes from different sources over the years of the fathers for cases when Catholics think they can throw around a few quotes to sound as if they really care what the fathers think. The fathers are only used when they agree with Rome. The Catholic true allegiance is to Rome, with Scripture and Tradition as nothing but tools to prop Rome up.

The majority of them are “orthodox”. Athanasius, Augustine, and all the rest. You see they don’t have to agree with me on every jot and tittle for me to consider them orthodox. They were fallible God fearing me just as I am. They are my forefathers in the faith and I respect them for their sacrifices and love of the Lord.

That is to say, can you please name a Church Father (or any ancient Christian) who shares the same faith as you (i.e., Presbyterian / Evangelical Christianity)?

No, I don’t think I can name one that would exactly confirms to the confession and catechism of my church, since the confession and catechism of my church was not around at the time. But guess what? Neither can you. Many Roman dogmas were unheard of and flatly contradicted by the fathers. It is only an anachronistic reading of history that would lead anyone to think otherwise, but things like that normally don’t stop a good Catholic.

What a nonsensical argument. First it assumes if one holds to the same rule of faith there will be 100% agreement. If you would just stop and think for a second you would realize that the same silly argument can be applied to your own system. If some of these Fathers held to Scripture, Oral Tradition, and the infallible Pope as the rule of faith, and if you interpret all three sources correctly then it serves reason that they would arrive at the same faith as you(i.e. Modern day Roman Catholic Dogmas). You even have infallible Popes disagreeing with your modern dogma.

The Christian faith is not about agreeing on every doctrine, but on agreeing on the essential doctrines of the faith. So there are many of them that mirrors my faith. I don’t submit to your unreasonable ( contrary to your claim that “it serves to reason”) premise of what sharing the same faith is.

Yes, I did above. Now, I reject your reason, but since this is your argument I would assume that you endorse this as a valid test. Therefore, based on your own criteria can you name a father in the first 5 centuries of the church that mirrors your belief today?


#10

If you read the first post on this thread you would realize that what you said above doesn’t make any sense(i.e. "Protestantism must deny the possiblity of St. Peter’s being "the rock’ to substantiate their protest against the papacy.)

Throughout Christendom, various meanings to many Scriptural passages are viable. The Catholic position does not say, “It must mean, A, but can not mean B, C, and D.” Thus, we can accept the writings of various Church fathers. Instead, the Catholic hermeneutic has always allowed for a robust understanding of God’s Word. Protestantism, on the other hand, must deny A and white knuckle B, C, and/or D to feel as though their case is valid.

This is also ironic, because when Protesant disagree over an interpretation it is a sign of how they cannot know the truth without an infallible interpreter. However, when Catholics have many different opinions on a verse it is suddenly a virtue. :confused:


#11

This is also ironic, because when Protesant disagree over an interpretation it is a sign of how they cannot know the truth without an infallible interpreter. However, when Catholics have many different opinions on a verse it is suddenly a virtue.

That is the protestant assumption (fallacy and red herring) that all verses in catholic theology must be declared doctrinal or dogmatic.

However protestant churches within their separate denominations do make doctrinal and dogmatic statements regarding particular verses that are at odds with each other. Baptism necessary or not; Lutheran, Baptist, Charismatic, Anglican, Methodist, non denom etc. Consubstantiation vs. symbolic Eucharist. Closed vs. open communion. Ordained priesthood vs. priesthood of believers. The meaning of faith alone. The meaning of bible alone. And quite a few more.

So which protestant interpretation is presenting the truth with respect to some of these essentials?

Is there someone to appeal to for the truth? If sola scriptura, and my interpretation in protestantism regarding the essentials is right, then the rest of protestantism must be wrong. (At least I would have the guts to stick up for my interpretation as being the right one as opposed to others and declaring theirs wrong)

Peace and God Bless
Nicene


#12

If you read my first sentence in my first post on this thread you would have realized the context of my comments. I understand that many things we say here don’t make sense to you. This does not make them irrelevant or unimportant.

I began my post with this sentence:

The sword drills are not helpful.

The context was the trend on this thread whereby we all break out our scissors and glue sticks and the Catholics say, " Some Protestants support position A." And the Protestants say, “But the ECF’s support position B and C.” And the Catholics responde, “Yeah, but they also support position A.” And the Protestants reply, “No, it can’t be A, because it is B and/or C.”

What COULD be a good discussion, turns into a sword drill. It’s not helpful. It turns into a competition to supply the right number of quotations by the right people saying the things we want them to say without the slightest consideration for who these people are talking to, what they are talking about, and why they are saying the things they say in the first place.

This is also ironic, because when Protesant disagree over an interpretation it is a sign of how they cannot know the truth without an infallible interpreter. However, when Catholics have many different opinions on a verse it is suddenly a virtue. :confused:

The vice in Protestant disagreement isn’t that they have different ideas. The vice is when individuals interpret Scripture, Tradition, and history for themselves and refuse to consider that they may not have the whole picture. The story becomes about what you hear and not about what is being said.

Do not be confused. When Catholics have different opinions, some of those opinions can be totally wrong. It is only when those opinions are tested can they be discerned as viable, profitable, truthful.

The truth of the matter is that the Rock is Christ. The rock is Peter. The rock is Peter’s faith. . .his confession. . .his authority. The rock is you and me. The rock, in a sense, can be anyone who Christ, the Rock, lifts above their human capacity and invites into his Body as building stones. The Church, through Scripture, Tradition, and historical witness, has always allowed for various interpretations working in harmony to reveal the truth about Christ.

We do not say, the rock can not be Peter, because it’s Christ. Instead, we accept Peter as the rock as he participates by grace in the Divine plan for His Body, the Church. We do not say, the rock can not be Christ because it’s Peter. Instead, we accept and embrace our Lord’s sovereign choice to place St. Peter as shepherd among his flock, holder of the key, and the rock upon which the Cornerstone bulids His Church.

I would suggest that rather than plucking up 10 ECF’s and saying, “See, I told you so.” Why not choose one. . .exhaustively study the composite work of this ECF and determine what he meant in one passage by considering what he actually believes in general, what he is actually saying, who is speaking to, what is speaking about, and what this means in reference to Christ and his plan for the Church.


#13

SS…Just wondering if you find these quotes interesting. They are from Protestant Scholars.

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

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, you 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.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14


Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

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.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

Whom should I believe? You or them? Is there a definitive Protestant body that I can get the answer? Is there a place I can go to find out who is right? There can only be one truth, right? And before you say something like, I should believe or go to the Bible, Jesus or ECF, I do, that's why I'm Catholic. Those scholars have the same resources as you, but have different conclusions. Why? I just want to know who is right. Thanks.

#14

One more…

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

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”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30


#15

Yeah, they are interesting. I’ve long known that some Protestant think Jesus is referring to Peter, some think it is to Peter’s faith, and some think it is to Christ. I’ve also long known that you find the same amongst the Fathers. So none of this is a surprise to me. It is Catholics that read this and think it is some great discovery. In the end it just shows one can interpret that passage as referring to Peter without reading all the other stuff into the passage that Catholics do.


#16

Arrogance is not a virtue.

Pride (ego) is not a virtue.

Condescension is not a virtue.

The Catholic true allegiance is to Rome, with Scripture and Tradition as nothing but tools to prop Rome up.Calumny is not a virtue.

Sarcasm is not virtuous.

Insults are not virtuous.

**He who combines the practice of the virtues with spiritual knowledge is a man of power. For with the first he withers his desire and tames his incensiveness, and with the second he gives wings to his intellect and goes out of himself to God. **
St. Maximos the Confessor (Second Century on Love no. 28)


#17

Of course we’re surprised.

After all the haranguing we have to put up with regarding the Papacy, to have a Protestant actually stand up and admit the truth is a breath of fresh air and a salve for old wounds. When a Protestant finally has the guts to say, “The Catholic Church is right” it’s ALWAYS a great discovery, and I never get tired of hearing it.

What is surprising is that Protestants quote the writings of the Fathers (which by definition have been around for almost two millenia) as if THEY have just discovered something that we’ve been hiding under the bed.

If the Fathers really had held all of the positions that your “proof-texts” seem to indicate, then the Church would have accepted them long ago. The fact that you are forced into using them to argue against Catholicism reflects either a) your misunderstanding of the complete context or b) the Church’s rejection of that particular Fathers’ position on the issue in question.


#18

Whoa Partner!! Those scholars are not saying the Papacy is correct, nor are they saying Catholicism is right. Just like when the fathers say the passage is referring to Peter’s confession they are not saying Protestantism is right. You have took a huge leap of logic here.

What is surprising is that Protestants quote the writings of the Fathers (which by definition have been around for almost two millenia) as if THEY have just discovered something that we’ve been hiding under the bed.

Actually, a lot of that stuff has been hid under the bed. Catholic apologists used to make all sorts of wild claims about the fathers until Protestants started to read and quote the fathers also. Catholics apologists have taken the fathers out of context on many things. I remember listening to a debate with Jerry Matatics and James White. Jerry Matatics boldly claim no father ever said the Scriptures were sufficient. James White quoted Anthanasius saying that exact thing. You could tell he was totally surprised and asked where the quote came from. James White told him and he said he would look into it. Catholics are shocked to find out that Augustine says only the Scripture are without error or to hear that he didn’t believe in a physical presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I know because I have talk to them. So don’t try to feed me that stuff that Catholics aren’t surprised. Most Catholics don’t have any idea of what the fathers believe except what they are spoon fed by the thier apologists.

If the Fathers really had held all of the positions that your “proof-texts” seem to indicate, then the Church would have accepted them long ago.

No and that is the problem. The church picks and chooses what to take from the fathers. The EO church will tell you a different story about a number of doctrines and they are supposedly relying on the same infallible tradition. Then there are things with no early support, but Catholicism still accepts it based on later support. You have got to wakeup from your dreaming.

The fact that you are forced into using them to argue against Catholicism reflects either a) your misunderstanding of the complete context or b) the Church’s rejection of that particular Fathers’ position on the issue in question.

This is nothing more than what I have always said. In the end it is not about Oral Tradition or Scripture for Catholics, but whatever Rome says. Rome tells you what Tradition is. Rome tells you what Scripture is. Only Rome can rightly interpret both Tradition and Scripture. You are free to see black and call it white if the church tells you so but don’t expect the rest of us to follow that nonsense.


#19

#20

Such arrogance! Shameful!

For shame, for shame!


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.