Peter Is Not The Rock!

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hi LLOJ,

I'm sorry but your threads are always very wordy and full of quotations. It's very hard for me to make an intelligent response to such posts. The truth is I can't even read through every word in a single post. You should get the more learned and older chaps in our midst. Sorry.

You mean like AV1611Vet

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=48558006#post48558006

AV1611VET

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

 

[Anglian]

I do think we need at some point to address Monica's comments about Christ renaming Peter. As we saw about forty pages ago, many of the ECFs took the foundation of the Church to be St. Peter's declaration of faith; but as she asks, why the change of name if it meant nothing?

What my own Church holds is that the early Church operated on the basis that the successors of all the Apostles enjoyed the same relationship as the Apostles themselves; Peter, himself, in his first epistle, claims to be no more than an 'elder' among 'elders'. No bishop of Rome presided at Nicaea or Ephesus or Chalcedon; if Rome had then been recognized as having the position it came to have, this would be a little odd.

That said, those of us not accepting the developing understanding of the Petrine verses ought to have an answer to Monica's question: what did the name change mean?

When my dear friend Beamishboy (and what a pleasure to have him back in full force on his white steed) writes this:
[

I think you missed Anglian's point. His argument is simply that the threat from heresy and barbarians led Rome to arrogate to itself an authority it was not given by the Apostles and the early church.

he's half right and half wrong about what I meant. It was not that Rome simply arrogated something to itself, it was that Leo the Great (who is the first Pope to put together a cogent and coherent Scripture based claim to authority over the Church as a whole) drew on one strand of the rich tradition of the Church. There had always been an acknowledgement of Petrine primacy in terms of 'honour', but what did that mean?

Pope Victor I had tried to excommunicate the Quatodecimanians, but had been dissuaded by Irenaeus and the other bishops, who clearly imply that this would be going beyond what they understood 'primacy' to mean. So that idea had been there as early as the second century, and Leo was drawing on it, and other writings to advance a developing understanding of the idea. It was a development which suited the conditions facing the Church in the West over the next few centuries, which was why it was accepted there. That it went hand in hand with the developing power of secular monarchs again speaks to the wider need for unity and security.

In the East, conditions were different, and the Western understanding did not develop, not least for two reasons. With the split after Chalcedon, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria had their own internal difficulties to handle and took a lesser role in theological arguments externally; their submergence under the flood of Islam rendered that situation permanent. It also highlighted the second reason why the Western understanding did not take hold in the East. The disappearance of the other Patriarchates left the newest one of all, Constantinople, as the only one. That it was also the centre of the power of the Roman Empire made it impossible for it to accept the powers now claimed by the Popes of Rome. Theological and political arguments became inextricably intertwined, eventually leading to the events of 1054.

1453 would leave Orthodoxy without a power centre in the old Christian world, which left the relatively recently converted principality of Rus as the centre of independent Orthodoxy. Far from the mainstream of European life, Russia developed its own political-religious system, with the Orthodox Church at its centre. The likelihood that it would ever countenance any interference from a Church which was that of its great enemy, Poland, was nil. Again, political and theological factors intertwined to keep Orthodoxy and Catholicism apart.

In the West, with the advent of the printing press and a different style of monarchy, and with the disappearance of the barbarian threat, the conditions militating in favour of the acceptance of the Papal claims began to change. Henry VIII's real beef with Rome was not over theology (he remained, theologically, very Catholic) but power; how dare it deny him what he wanted over his divorce, just because the wife he wished to be rid of was the aunt of Charles V who happened to be occupying Rome at the time? Louis XIV would, for different reasons, have a similar row with Rome in the seventeenth century, but backed away from a full scale split when Rome made it clear that it was not claiming political power in France.

Much of Europe, however, and those regions to which the Catholics took the Gospel, accepted the Petrine claims. The understanding of them is not frozen in amber, as Pope Benedict XVI has shown. He has spoken and written about the need for a greater understanding between the senior bishops of the various Churches, and it may be that, over time, just as the understanding of the Petrine claims developed to fit the needs of one period, they will continue to do so.

Whatever some Christian believe about evolution, the structures and understanding of them from Scripture and tradition, do evolve. Attacks on Rome as having got something spectacularly wrong are unlikely to aid such developments - even as attacks by Rome and its allies on Protestants in previous ages, did nothing to aid a positive outcome to the Lutheran revolt.

A lot of Christian charity, love and understanding will be needed if things are to develop in a positive way. The Faith faces some real and deadly enemies in this world, and if we stand divided, then we are going to have to rely entirely upon Christ's promise that the gates of hell will not prevail; we know we can do that, but couldn't we try to help - just a little bit?

Peace.

Anglian

 

[MoNiCa4316]

That said, those of us not accepting the developing understanding of the Petrine verses ought to have an answer to Monica's question: what did the name change mean?

what is the answer in your opinion Anglian? thanks for bringing back my question btw

You said that no bishop of Rome presided over Nicaea, etc, - I don't know enough history to talk about this - but as far as I understand, the role of the Pope is more about keeping unity/right doctrine in the Church, than presiding over every decision...Catholics agree that other bishops have important roles too, and their decisions (as well as the entire Body of the faithful) matter. Also, I noticed that it's really difficult to have any conversation about this based on quotes by the ECFs, because some of them seem to talk in favor of Orthodoxy and some of Catholicism.. I remember I read a quote once about other early church bishops consulting the Pope on their decisions.. I'll have to search for it though.

I agree that the Apostle's successors would have the same relationship as the Apostles themselves.. well I dont know but when I look at the Bible, it seems to me that Peter had a special place among the Apostles and was given some special priveledges. I'm going to copy a post that was on this thread, or another thread, many pages ago.. I'm sorry I completely forgot whose post it is but I copied it onto my computer for future reference:

"Although St. Peter never called himself "pope" in Scripture, he did indeed have a special apostolic primacy and jurisdiction. The Scriptural evidence for this is substantial and explicit.

Of the Twelve Apostles, St. Peter is by far the one mentioned most often in Scripture. He appears 195 times. The next most often mentioned Apostle was St. John, who comes in at a whopping 29 times. St. James the Greater is mentioned 19 times, St. Philip 15, and the numbers dwindle rapidly for the others. Does this in itself prove St. Peter's primacy? No, but it does shed considerable light on his importance. What does that light reveal?

Among other things, we see that when the Twelve Apostles are listed by name (Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17, and Acts 1:13), St. Peter's name is always first - and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply "Peter and the Twelve," as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

There are many other biblical signs of St. Peter's preeminence among the Apostles. He is the only one who receives a name change from Christ. He was Simon, but Christ calls him "Rock" (Matt. 16:18). Name changes given by God that we read about in Scripture have huge significance and imply an elevation in importance and a special mission given to that person by God (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel). He is also singled out by Christ to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is promised, "Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven" (Matt. 16:19).

St. Peter is the lone Apostle Christ calls out of the boat to walk on water (Matt, 1:28-29). At the tomb of Christ, St, John waits to allow St. Peter to enter ahead of him (John 20:6). It is to him among the Apostles that God first reveals the Resurrection (Mark 16:7). The risen Christ appears to him first, before the other Apostles (Luke 24:34). Christ preaches the gospel to the crowds from St, Peter's fishing boat (Luke 5:3). St. Peter is told by Christ, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) faith may not fail. And once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Christ makes St. Peter the shepherd of His Church (John 21:15-17). In Acts 1:13-26, St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St, Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter's dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St, Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal. 1:18).

Having said that, what should we make of St, Peter's reference to himself in 1 Peter 5:1 as a "fellow presbyter"? Does this signal that he was unaware of his special role as chief of the Apostles? The answer is found in the same passage, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another," he says, "for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time" (1 Peter 5:5). Since he was cautioning his Christian audience to be humble, it makes perfect sense that he would take his own advice and, setting an example for them, speak of himself in humble terms. And in doing so, he was following Christ's command, "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Matt, 20:26-27). But this humility shouldn't blind us to the substantial body of biblical evidence showing that he did receive a special apostolic preeminence and authority from Christ - evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore or strain to explain away.

St. Paul, like St. Peter was also humble when referring to himself. He was by far the most prominent and prolific New Testament writer, responsible for about half of the New Testament, but he said, "I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God" (1 Cor. 15:10), and, "To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph, 3:8). On numerous occasions he called himself a mere deacon, the very lowest level of ordained ministry in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25). But clearly, St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a deacon.

As with St. Peter, these examples of St. Paul's humility are balanced St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a right to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phil, 8-9), and, "Although we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ. Rather, we were gentle among you, as a nursing mother cares for her children" (1 Thess. 2:7).

St. Peter's calling himself a "fellow presbyter" doesn't disprove his primacy any more than St. Paul's habit of calling himself a "deacon" proves he had no authority greater than a deacon's."

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Since the ECFs who thought the rock was Peter's confession were already mentioned in this thread.. I'll mention the ones who understood the rock to be Peter.. so that we have both sides represented.

http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

"Simon Kephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Kephas, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).
Tertullian (220 A.D.):

"Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?" (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).
Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying ....
"I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church ...[Matt 16-19]' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this ***personally on Peter****? 'On you,' He says, 'I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys'...." (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)
The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)

"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" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])
The Clementine Homilies (C. 221)

"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
St. Hippolytus (225 A.D.):

"Peter, the Rock of the Church ..." (Hippolytus in S. Theophan, n. 9, Galland, ii. p. 494). "Peter, the Rock of the Faith, whom Christ our Lord called blessed, the teacher of the Church, the first disciple, he who has the Keys of the Kingdom." (Hippolytus, Ex Fabricio, Op. Hippol. tom. ii. De Fine Mundi et de Antichristo, n. 9).
Origen (230-250 A.D.):

"See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church ..." (Origen, In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
"Upon him (Peter), as on the earth, the Church was founded." (Origen, Ep. ad. Rom. lib. v.c. 10, tom iv.)
"Peter, upon whom is built Christ's Church, against which the gates of hell will not prevail." (Origen, T. iv. In Joan. Tom. v.)
St. Cyprian (246 A.D.):

"For first to Peter, upon whom He built the Church, and from whom He appointed and showed that unity should spring ..." (Cyprian, Ep. lxxiiii ad Fubaian).
"God is one, and Christ is one, and the Church is one, and the Chair (of Peter) is one, by the Lord's word, upon a Rock ..." (Cyprian, Ep. xl. ad Pleb).
"Peter, also to whom the Lord commends His sheep to be fed and guarded, on whom He laid the foundation of the Church ...." (Cyprian, De Habitu Virg).
St. Ephream the Syrian (350-370 A.D.):

"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 and fountain from which all My teaching flows." (Ephraem, Homilies 4:1).
"Peter, who was called Kephas, he who was captured on the sea shore, and who received testimony from the great Shepherd, that 'Upon this Rock I will build my Church.'" (Ephraem T. iiii. Gr. De Sacred).
"That Rock which He set up that Satan might stumble thereon, Satan, on the other hand, wished to put this Rock in the way of the Lord that He might stumble upon it, when Peter said, 'Far be it from Thee, Lord.' [Matt 16:22-23] (Ephraem, Sermo de Transfig. Dom., Sec. IV).
St. Hilary of Poitiers (356 A.D.)

"Blessed 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 Trinitate, 6:20).
"Peter, the first Confessor of the Son of God, the Foundation of the Church, ..." (Hilary, Tract in Ps. cxxxi.)
"And in truth Peter's confession obtained a worthy recompense ....Oh! in thy designation by a new name, happy Foundation of the Church, and a Rock worthy of the building up of that which was to scatter the infernal laws of the gates of hell!" (Hilary, Comm. in Matt. c. xvi.)
St. Cyril of Jerusalem (363 A.D.):

"Our Lord Jesus Christ then become man, but by the many He was not known. But wishing to teach that which was not known, having assembled His disciples, He asked, 'Who do you say that I the Son of man am?' ...And all being silent, for it was beyond man to know, Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church, not using language of his own finding, but having his mind enlightened by the Father, says unto Him, 'Thou art the Christ,' and not simply that, but, 'the Son of the living God.' And a blessing follows the speech. ....' ....and upon this Rock I will found my Church ...' " (Cyril, Catech, xi. n. 3).
"He said to Peter, 'And upon this Rock I will build my Church.' " (Cyril, Catechetical Lectures, 18:25).
Optatus (367 A.D.)

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas ["Rock"] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
St. Gregory Nazianzen (370 A.D.):

"See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church." (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii).
"Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock ... (Gregory Naz., T. ii.)
"[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys." (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

 

[MoNiCa4316]

St. Gregory of Nyssa (371 A.D.):

"Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter." (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic).
"Peter ...that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church." (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)
St. Basil the Great (371 A.D.):

"The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church." (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.).
"The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock ..." (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).
St. Epiphanius (385 A.D.):

"Blessed Peter, who for a while denied the Lord, Peter who was Chief of the Apostles, he who became unto us truly a firm Rock upon which is based the Lord's Faith, upon which Rock the Church is in every way built." (Epiphanius, Adv. Haeres).
"Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as the ***Chief of the Apostles*** testifies, he who was found worthy to be blessed by the Lord, because the 'Father had revealed unto him.' .....This was befitting in that the ***First of the Apostles***, that ****firm Rock*** upon which the Church of God is built, and 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' 'The gates of hell' are heretics and heresiarchs. For, in every way, the faith confirmed in him who received the Keys of Heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith ....And He heard from the same God, Peter, 'feed my lambs;' ***to him was entrusted the flock***; he **leads the way admirably in the power of His own Master***. (Epiphanius, T. ii. in Anchor., 9).
St. Ambrose of Milan (385 A.D.):

"Peter is called the Rock because, like an immovable rock, he sustains and joins the mass of the entire Christian edifice." (Ambrose, Sermon 4).
"Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank from that spiritual Rock that followed them and that Rock was Christ, ' and He did not refuse to bestow the favor of this title even upon His disciple, so that he too might be 'Peter,' in that he has from the Rock a solid consistancy of firm faith." (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc.).
"[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]).
"It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
St. Asterius of Pontus (387 A.D.):

"Peter went not away unrequited and unrewarded; but was declared "blessed" by the truly Blessed, and was called the Rock of faith, the foundation and substructure of the Church of God." (Ambrose, Hom. in Apost. Pet. et Paul, tom ii.).
St. John Chrysostom (387 A.D.):

"...and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples ..." (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit).
"Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church." (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote).
"Peter, ... that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession." (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)
St. Jerome (393 A.D.):

"Christ is not alone in being the Rock, for He granted to the Apostle Peter that he should be called 'Rock'. " (Jerome, Comm. on Jerimias 3:65).
"For what has Paul to do with Aristotle? Or Peter to do with Plato? For as the latter (Plato) was prince of philosophers, so was the former (Peter) prince of Apostles: on him the Lord's Church was firmly founded, and neither rushing flood nor storm can shake it." (Jerome, Against the Pelagians 1:14a).
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division." (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
St. Augustine (410 A.D.):

"These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands." (Augustine, Christian Combat).
"...Why! a [wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth] that is cut from the vine retains its shape. But what use is that shape if it is not living from the root? Come, brother, if you wish to be engrafted in the vine. It is grievous when we see you thus lying cut off. Number the bishops from the See of Peter. And, in that order of fathers, see whom succeeded whom. This is the Rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. All who rejoice in peace, only judge truly." --St. Augustine, Psalmus Contra Pertem Donati.
St. Cyril of Alexandria (424 A.D.):

"He suffers no longer to be called Simon, exercising authoriy to rule over him already as having become His own. But by a title suitable to the thing, He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra (rock); for on him he was afterwards to found His Church." (Cyril T. iv. Comm. in Joan.).
" 'Blessed art thou ...,' calling, I imagine, nothing else the Rock, in allusion to his name (Peter), but the immovable and stable faith of the disciple upon whom the Church of Christ is founded and fixed without danger of falling." (Cyril, On the Holy Trinity).
"He promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as Shepherd." (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad. loc.)
Sechnall of Ireland (A.D. 444)

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [St. Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
Pope Leo I (C. 445)

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter's solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).
Council of Chalcedon (451 A.D.)

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

 

[MamaZ]

The name change had more meaning to it for Peter than it did for anyone else.

 

[Anglian]

Dear Monica,

we have to be careful with the list you gave us. If we take the Tertullian quotation, it comes from his Prescription Against Heretics, chaper 22, and the FULL quotation reads:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with the power of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His breast whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He commended to Mary as a son in His own stead

If we read his, On Modesty, in chapter 22 we find this:

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church,’ ‘to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;’ or, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,’ you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? ‘On thee,’ He says, ‘will I build My church;’ and, ‘I will give thee the keys’...and, ‘Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound’ not to the Church;. and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what key: ‘Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,’ and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are ‘loosed’ the sins that were beforetime ‘bound;’ and those which have not been ‘loosed’ are ‘bound,’ in accordance with true salvation...(Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Volume IV, Tertullian, On Modesty 21, p. 99).

So care is necessary before reading all the quotations you give us as pointing unambiguously to the present Catholic reading of the authority accorded to Peter.

That is not to deny that there is an authority accorded to St. Peter. None of the ECFs deny it; what is under question is the nature of that authority.

If, for a moment, we take it that a special authority over other Apostles is being given to Peter, we have two problems. The first is that Peter himself does not mention it; the second is the assumption that it could be passed on to bishops of Rome.

Irenaeus has Linus as the first bishop of Rome and Sts. Peter and Paul as the founders of the Roman Church. So the notion that Peter is the first bishop and could pass his authority on to future bishops of Rome is a little problematic on our earliest account of the succession to the See of Rome. The second problem is that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever went to Rome, so why has Antioch never claimed a special Petrine authority?

The best that can be said, I think, is that the bishops of the imperial capital and the site of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul were, from early on, recognised as having a special place within the Church; honour was accorded to them, and many of the quotations you list are about honour rather than jurisdiction. There were always some who held what one might call a high doctrine of what honour meant, and others who took the view that all bishops were equal when it came to exercising authority. For the reasons given above, the West began to hold a very high doctrine of what honour meant, and the east disagreed.

But the plain fact remains that neither Rome nor Constantinople are following the example of the early Church - because the circumstances which then obtained no longer do so. There are no longer five Patriarchal Sees with great authority who will look to Rome as first among equals: Alexandria's Christians belong, overwhelmingly to the Coptic Church, which is part of the Oriental Orthodox family; Antioch no longer counts, and its successor, Damascus, has many Patriarchs; Jerusalem is no longer a Christian city. Constantinople has no power, with Moscow being the power-house of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is not only no Roman Empire, but no semblance of it. The world's greatest Power, the USA, has just about every variety of Christian in it, and they can't even agree among themselves, let alone act as a kind of latter-day Roman Empire.

So whether we like it or not, a return to the practice of the early Church is not possible. Neither is it probable that the rest of the world will agree to submit to Rome, when Europe itself is being dechristianised very rapidly, and when the modern way is both democratic and pluralistic. The Papacy retains the trappings of a medieval monarchy; it needs, as Pope Benedict XVI himself argues, to adapt to modern conditions.

If, as the Orthodox argue, St. Peter's change of name was to symbolise his declaration of Faith in Christ which is the rock upon which the Church was built, then Rome should certainly be accorded a primacy of honour; a court of last resort, if you like, where challenges to orthodoxy can be authoritatively decided by the bishop of Rome in conclave with fellow bishops.

Even that would be more than our Protestant bretheren might want. It may be doubted whether some Orthodox would sign up to it. But we cannot expect a return to the practice of the 1st, or 5th, or 19th centuries because we are living in the 21st century. That does not mean that the Faith once received is changed, it cannot be, but it does mean that unless we update our ideas about what we mean by 'the Church', the forces of secularism and Islam get a field day against a divided Christianity.

Peace,

Anglian

 

[narnia59]

The 2 different names of "saul/paul" is also interesting.
Seems like mayby the saul of the NT was a type of saul of the OT, who persecuted poor ole David all the time.

2 Samuel 22:1 And David is speaking to YHWH words of the song, this, in day of YHWH rescuing him from palm of all his enemies and from palm of Sha'uwl

Acts 13:9 Saul/sauloV <4569> yet the even Paul/pauloV <3972> being filled of spirit, holy-one, staring into him,

Interesting, but Paul did not receive a new name from God, as was the case with Abraham, Jacob and Peter, so not the same thing. In his one direct meeting with Christ, Saul leaves still being Saul. Then you're just reading along in Acts and it mentions Saul, also known as Paul.... and then begins to refer to him as Paul from then on.

Most of the scholars I've read interpret this to mean that Paul actually did have two names due to his Jewish ancestory (Saul) and Roman citizenship (Paul). He began using Paul for two reasons. First, to distance himself from the Jewish Saul of Taursus known for persecuting the Christians. Second, to leverage his Roman citizenship to his advantage in spreading the Gospel. We certainly see that occuring in Acts.

 

[narnia59]

The name change had more meaning to it for Peter than it did for anyone else.

Since that is not consistent with the rest of Scripture when God changes someone's name, surely you have a scripture reference that backs up what you're saying here?

 

[narnia59]

So I am curious. In the view of those who believe that Jesus did not mean Peter was the rock, what word would the translators have used for Peter instead of 'petros' if he did in fact mean Peter was the rock? You are __?_____ and upon this petra I will build my church?

We know from John's gospel that the name Jesus actually gave to Peter was the Aramaic Cephas (which means rock).

So it comes down to what was the Greek translator in Matthew's gospel trying to convey.

If his intent was to convey there was no difference between the two, seems like he couldn't have said "You are petros and upon this petros I would build my church", because according to the view of those that petros refers to a little pebble, it wouldn't have been much of a church.

It seems that leaves us with the translator would have had to say "You are petra and upon this petra I will build my church", and also translated the Aramaic rock (Cephas) to Petra in Greek.

Does that about sum it up?

Did anybody ever respond to this? I'd still like to know how people think it should have been translated if it was meant that Peter was indeed the rock.

And if Jesus really meant Peter's faith, why didn't he say "You are Peter and upon your statement of faith I will build my church"?

 

[narnia59]

If, as the Orthodox argue, St. Peter's change of name was to symbolise his declaration of Faith in Christ which is the rock upon which the Church was built, then Rome should certainly be accorded a primacy of honour; a court of last resort, if you like, where challenges to orthodoxy can be authoritatively decided by the bishop of Rome in conclave with fellow bishops.


Peace,

Anglian

Informative and charitable as always Anglian. I would question the above, in the sense that from a timing perspective, Christ did not change Peter's name because of his profession of faith. The actual name change does not coincide with the statement of faith, which if the intent was to 'highlight' the confession of faith, it would seem that should be the case.

Rather, he changed his name at their very first meeting "Andrew, Simon Peter's brother, was one of the two who heard what John had said and who had followed Jesus. The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ). And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas" (which, when translated, is Peter).

It also does not address the issue of the keys which were given soley to Peter. In the model of the Jewish kingships which I think we all agree foreshadow the kingship of Christ, there were many in the cabinet, but always one in charge of the palace -- only one given the keys and authority.

 

[MamaZ]

Two different greek words are used in this passage of scripture. Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

 

[Rick Otto]

Did anybody ever respond to this? I'd still like to know how people think it should have been translated if it was meant that Peter was indeed the rock.

And if Jesus really meant Peter's faith, why didn't he say "You are Peter and upon your statement of faith I will build my church"?

Indeed.
Why didn't Jesus say "...and upon you I will build my Church"?
Instead, He used an impersonal pronoun - "this".

Perhaps calling Peter "The Stone" would've been more prudent in light of the heavy use of "rock" to depict Christ throughout the rest of scripture.

1 Peter 2: 1: Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6: Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7: Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

You say only Peter was 'given the keys' which symbolize authority, but wasn't the binding & loosing authority also given to the rest of the apostles? It appears to be the case in Matthew 18:18 where He is addressing all of them.

 

[narnia59]

Two different greek words are used in this passage of scripture. Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

Well, the intent could certainly be that is merely going for the masculine word since Peter is a man.

Petros is only used in the NT in reference to Peter -- never in reference to smaller stones. Other Greek words are used for them. Why did the translator choose to use Petros instead of lithos so there could be no confusion?

Aside from the fact that Peter's name had already been changed to Cephas by Christ.

 

[narnia59]

Indeed.
Why didn't Jesus say "...and upon you I will build my Church"?
Instead, He used an impersonal pronoun - "this".

Perhaps calling Peter "The Stone" would've been more prudent in light of the heavy use of "rock" to depict Christ throughout the rest of scripture.

1 Peter 2: 1: Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings,
2: As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:
3: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious.
4: To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
5: Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
6: Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
7: Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
8: And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
9: But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
10: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

You say only Peter was 'given the keys' which symbolize authority, but wasn't the binding & loosing authority also given to the rest of the apostles? It appears to be the case in Matthew 18:18 where He is addressing all of them.

Jesus also did not say "and upon your profession of faith I will build my church" either. Nor is their any indication that he switched the focus from Peter to himself.

He didn't just say 'this', he said 'this rock', as if we're supposed to know which rock he's talking about. Which rock would be "this rock"? The only rock he's referred to (immediately preceding 'this rock') is Peter. The person he is talking to is Peter. The person he named Cephas (rock) at their first meeting was Peter.

Yes, the other apostles were given this authority, but the 'keys' are missing. They are given solely to Peter.

Which models the OT Jewish kingships. There were many different offices, each with their own authority. But only one was given the keys. Only one was in charge of the palace. When the king was not physically present at the place or could not fulfill his duties because of illness, the one with the keys had primacy and was in charge of the palace.

 

[MamaZ]

In the Peshitta Syriac New Testament the Greek word "PETRA" is translated by the Aramaic word SHU`A' as in Matthew 7:24-25 meaning a massive rock or a boulder.

 

[MamaZ]

KE'PHA' IS ALWAYS USED TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD LITHOS.
SHU'A IS THE MORE USUAL AND CORRECT SYRIAC WORD TO TRANSLATE THE GREEK WORD PETRA.
KE'PHA IS A MOVABLE STONE = LITHOS / PETROS.
SHU'A IS A MASSIVE ROCK = PETRA.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The name change had more meaning to it for Peter than it did for anyone else.

how do you know?

Dear Monica,

we have to be careful with the list you gave us. If we take the Tertullian quotation, it comes from his Prescription Against Heretics, chaper 22, and the FULL quotation reads:

If we read his, On Modesty, in chapter 22 we find this:

So care is necessary before reading all the quotations you give us as pointing unambiguously to the present Catholic reading of the authority accorded to Peter.

Hi Anglian, could you please explain to me how the quotes you just posted change things? The first one just goes on to talk about John...the second one is actually included in my list of quotes, and the way I interpret it, it just says that Peter was indeed called the Rock..I know it sounds here like he's saying that Peter's authority wasn't handed down to his successor, but then it sounds like other ECF's disagree with this...
Optatus (367 A.D.)

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas ["Rock"] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

That is not to deny that there is an authority accorded to St. Peter. None of the ECFs deny it; what is under question is the nature of that authority.

If, for a moment, we take it that a special authority over other Apostles is being given to Peter, we have two problems. The first is that Peter himself does not mention it; the second is the assumption that it could be passed on to bishops of Rome.

Irenaeus has Linus as the first bishop of Rome and Sts. Peter and Paul as the founders of the Roman Church. So the notion that Peter is the first bishop and could pass his authority on to future bishops of Rome is a little problematic on our earliest account of the succession to the See of Rome. The second problem is that St. Peter was bishop of Antioch before he ever went to Rome, so why has Antioch never claimed a special Petrine authority?

The best that can be said, I think, is that the bishops of the imperial capital and the site of the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul were, from early on, recognised as having a special place within the Church; honour was accorded to them, and many of the quotations you list are about honour rather than jurisdiction. There were always some who held what one might call a high doctrine of what honour meant, and others who took the view that all bishops were equal when it came to exercising authority. For the reasons given above, the West began to hold a very high doctrine of what honour meant, and the east disagreed.

But the plain fact remains that neither Rome nor Constantinople are following the example of the early Church - because the circumstances which then obtained no longer do so. There are no longer five Patriarchal Sees with great authority who will look to Rome as first among equals: Alexandria's Christians belong, overwhelmingly to the Coptic Church, which is part of the Oriental Orthodox family; Antioch no longer counts, and its successor, Damascus, has many Patriarchs; Jerusalem is no longer a Christian city. Constantinople has no power, with Moscow being the power-house of Eastern Orthodoxy. There is not only no Roman Empire, but no semblance of it. The world's greatest Power, the USA, has just about every variety of Christian in it, and they can't even agree among themselves, let alone act as a kind of latter-day Roman Empire.

So whether we like it or not, a return to the practice of the early Church is not possible. Neither is it probable that the rest of the world will agree to submit to Rome, when Europe itself is being dechristianised very rapidly, and when the modern way is both democratic and pluralistic. The Papacy retains the trappings of a medieval monarchy; it needs, as Pope Benedict XVI himself argues, to adapt to modern conditions.

If, as the Orthodox argue, St. Peter's change of name was to symbolise his declaration of Faith in Christ which is the rock upon which the Church was built, then Rome should certainly be accorded a primacy of honour; a court of last resort, if you like, where challenges to orthodoxy can be authoritatively decided by the bishop of Rome in conclave with fellow bishops.

Even that would be more than our Protestant bretheren might want. It may be doubted whether some Orthodox would sign up to it. But we cannot expect a return to the practice of the 1st, or 5th, or 19th centuries because we are living in the 21st century. That does not mean that the Faith once received is changed, it cannot be, but it does mean that unless we update our ideas about what we mean by 'the Church', the forces of secularism and Islam get a field day against a divided Christianity.

Peace,

Anglian

From what I understand, the way Catholics believe is not that the Pope is the "supreme ruler" of all the other bishops or anything, but that he gives the Church unity and through him correct doctrines are preserved.. I think there's a pretty subtle distinction.. if I got the theology correct..

I can't comment on any of the historical details because I don't know history very well.. I'm way over my head here in this discussion lol

Indeed.
Why didn't Jesus say "...and upon you I will build my Church"?
Instead, He used an impersonal pronoun - "this".

but this pronoun grammatically goes together with the last preceding noun.. which is "Peter".

You say only Peter was 'given the keys' which symbolize authority, but wasn't the binding & loosing authority also given to the rest of the apostles? It appears to be the case in Matthew 18:18 where He is addressing all of them

.

Catholics do not deny that other Apostles were given a certain authority as well. However when Christ is talking to Peter about the keys, He uses "you" in the singular, not the plural..

 

[beamishboy]

From what I understand, the way Catholics believe is not that the Pope is the "supreme ruler" of all the other bishops or anything, but that he gives the Church unity and through him correct doctrines are preserved.. I think there's a pretty subtle distinction.. if I got the theology correct..

What is the RC position on the Unam Sanctam? That there is no salvation outside the Roman Pontiff?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by MamaZ Two different greek words are used in this passage of scripture. Petros is not merely a masculine form of the word petra, but is a different word with a different meaning, though both words are derived from a common root.

That appears to be the case with "saul/paul". And why does a lexicon show the word "paulos" being of LATIN origin

Acts 7:58 And casting out outside of the City they had stone-casted him and the witnesses put off the garments of them beside the feet of a young-man being called Saul [same wording as the "court" in Revelation 11:2]

Acts 13:9 Saul/sauloV <4569> yet the even Paul/pauloV <3972> being filled of spirit, holy-one, staring into him,

4569. Saulos sow'-los of Hebrew origin, the same as 4549; Saulus (i.e. Shaul), the Jewish name of Paul:--Saul.

3972. Paulos pow'-los of Latin origin; (little; but remotely from a derivative of 3973, meaning the same); Paulus, the name of a Roman and of an apostle:--Paul, Paulus.

836. aulos ow-los' from the same as 109; a flute (as blown):--pipe

833. aule ow-lay' from the same as 109; a yard (as open to the wind); by implication, a mansion:--court, (sheep-)fold, hall, palace.