Who is the Rock?

[BBAS 64]

The Church Fathers were in disagreement about 'the Rock'. I found this quote on another site.

A survey of early church fathers commentaries shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone.

Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731
​

thus...

"Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock." (St Cyprian - The Unity of the Catholics, cap. 4-5)​

"Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1 Corinthians 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.

"And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1 Corinthians 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter."
(Blessed Augustine of Hippo - Sermon 26 Mathew 14:25)
​

Good Day, Jamelia and Pilgrim

Just to provide some more scholarly thought to this issue:


Nobody in the earliest generations of Christianity refers to the bishops of Rome having universal jurisdiction. The absence of an early papacy, the office of universal jurisdiction that you refer to, is a consensus among both Catholic and non-Catholic scholars. Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], p. 425).





The Roman Catholic historian Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer....Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2, 11)


Catholic historian von Dollinger reminds us of the undeniable facts:



"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's succesors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess - Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[tqpix]

Yeaaaaah!!! someone got the joke...

I had to raise the peoples eyebrow at the last two responses before yours

I know who the Rock is (liked him better when he was Rocky Maivia). That's why I said that if he is not Christian, he's not THE Rock.

 

[Iollain]

Yeaaaaah!!! someone got the joke...

I had to raise the peoples eyebrow at the last two responses before yours

LOL, i saw that an hour and a half ago and laughed.

 

[Jamelia]

Good Day, Jamelia and Pilgrim

Hi! We Orthodox recognise Peter was very important. So was Rome; being the capital in the first centuries of Christendom, and also being the place that drew both Peter AND Paul to it.

This was the basis for Rome's status. It is why, when Constantinople became the capital it leap-frogged in status over cities that were older and had more presitgious Christian histories.

 

[Matthan]

Concerning Peter being called a "rock", everyone seems to ignore what John told us in his epistle, 1:42. "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." Jesus called Peter a stone (as in pebble or small stone), and not a (large) rock!!! Why would John even include such information if it were not by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and for our edification?

Matthan <J><

 

[Jamelia]

Certainly Peter didn't act as a modern-day Pope. The early church didn't even count him as a Bishop of Rome

"After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle" Eusebius Ecclesiastic History Book III:2:1
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-08.htm#P1497_696002​

He also titles a chaper "Chapter XIII. Anencletus, the Second Bishop of Rome." (Ibid) Anencletus followed Linus).

Note also how the select the new leader of the church in Jerusalem...

1 After the martyrdom of James and the conquest of Jerusalem which immediately followed, it is said that those of the apostles and disciples of the Lord that were still living came together from all directions with those that were related to the Lord according to the flesh (for the majority of them also were still alive) to take counsel as to who was worthy to succeed James.
2 They all with one consent pronounced Symeon, the son of Clopas, of whom the Gospel also makes mention; to be worthy of the episcopal throne of that parish. He was a cousin, as they say, of the Saviour. For Hegesippus records that Clopas was a brother of Joseph Book III:11:1-2 (quoted at above site)​

Note that the local church elected the new bishop.

 

[Borealis]

Concerning Peter being called a "rock", everyone seems to ignore what John told us in his epistle, 1:42. "And he brought him to Jesus. And when Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone." Jesus called Peter a stone (as in pebble or small stone), and not a (large) rock!!! Why would John even include such information if it were not by inspiration of the Holy Spirit and for our edification?

Matthan <J><

Some people just never learn, do they?

You can translate 'Kephas' to 'stone' or 'rock' as you wish; it doesn't really matter. Because Jesus used the same word 'Kephas' in Matthew when he changed Peter's name. "You are Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my church." So whether you translate it as 'stone' or as 'rock,' you're going to end up with the same sentence in the end: "You are Stone, and upon this Stone I will build my church."

Either way, the Rock is Peter (or Rocky Miavia, depending on who you ask).

P.S. I notice you're still using an inferior translation. Try using one that's more accurate. The DR is more plain.

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."

 

[Jamelia]

Some people just never learn, do they?

You can translate 'Kephas' to 'stone' or 'rock' as you wish; it doesn't really matter. Because Jesus used the same word 'Kephas' in Matthew when he changed Peter's name. "You are Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my church." So whether you translate it as 'stone' or as 'rock,' you're going to end up with the same sentence in the end: "You are Stone, and upon this Stone I will build my church."

Either way, the Rock is Peter (or Rocky Miavia, depending on who you ask).

P.S. I notice you're still using an inferior translation. Try using one that's more accurate. The DR is more plain.

"And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona. Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter."

Yet the significance of 'rock' is not so well established amongst the early Church Fathers - see quote given you by Augustine, Cyprian et al.

 

[Matthan]

Borealis, you surprise me! You stated,

"You can translate 'Kephas' to 'stone' or 'rock' as you wish; it doesn't really matter. Because Jesus used the same word 'Kephas' in Matthew when he changed Peter's name. "You are Kephas, and on this Kephas I will build my church." So whether you translate it as 'stone' or as 'rock,' you're going to end up with the same sentence in the end: "You are Stone, and upon this Stone I will build my church."

Everyone knows (possibly with yourself being the exception) that Jesus gave Simon the "new" name of Peter, the Stone, a long time before the discourse of Matthew 16:18 occurred. According to John, Jesus imparted the new name upon meeting Peter for the first time. But, in Matthew, our Lord gave Peter his new name when He ordained the twelve. Both of these events, however, occurred long before Peter announced that the disciples believed that Jesus was the Christ of God.

Matthan <J><

 

[Veritas]

Borealis, you surprise me! You stated,

[/font]

Everyone knows (possibly with yourself being the exception) that Jesus gave Simon the "new" name of Peter, the Stone, a long time before the discourse of Matthew 16:18 occurred. According to John, Jesus imparted the new name upon meeting Peter for the first time. But, in Matthew, our Lord gave Peter his new name when He ordained the twelve. Both of these events, however, occurred long before Peter announced that the disciples believed that Jesus was the Christ of God.

Matthan <J><

Correct. It's John 1:42.

"He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter)."

In case you're slow, Peter means "rock"...same as "cephas". Notice the prophetic tense Jesus uses, "shall be". My Word Study Greek/English Bible with Strong's Exhaustive Concordance (a Protestant book) states in the notes regarding the John 1:42 passage:

"From the word for rock in Aramaic (kepha) and Greek (petra) , respectively."

 

[ps139]

“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.” (Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)

“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)

--

“The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for 'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock' referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)

“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)

--

“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.' Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)

“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 [wherein he is called Cephas]), 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.” (Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)

“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This 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. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), 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. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. 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 (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)

“'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,' which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus' day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)....” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)

“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)

“The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)

“"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)

“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)

“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock" I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter' and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)

“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view....” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)

 

[Veritas]

.........​

 

[Veritas]

I don't believe it! You beat me to it. You know what they say: "great minds think alike!"

I will edit my post to delete the quotes so as not to bombard the thread.

 

[Jamelia]

-- various Protestants
--

It's a novel method you use to quote from Protestants as authorities. Personally I believe in sticking with the Holy Fathers - hence I have shown quotes from greats such as Cyprian, Augustine etc.

 

[Jamelia]

I don't believe it! You beat me to it. You know what they say: "great minds think alike!"

I will edit my post to delete the quotes so as not to bombard the thread.

Did you quote Protestants as authoratative too? How interesting. How many of them fully understand Christian 'tradition'?

 

[Jamelia]

A survey of the Early Church Fathers shows some seventeen Fathers who thought of the rock as Peter, but forty-four thought it referred to Peter&#8217;s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise &#8216;the rock&#8217; as meaning Peter alone." Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731​

"For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come."
(Saint Cyprian Epistle 70 Concerning the baptism of Heretics)​

 

[Cliff2]

Matthew 16:18 And I say also 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.

1 Peter 2:6 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.

Peter himself says that Jesus is the rock!

Jesus is the rock, I wouldn't want to build a church on someone who was to end up denying Jesus three times.

Apart from that, the rock is Jesus.

 

[Jamelia]

Jesus is the rock, I wouldn't want to build a church on someone who was to end up denying Jesus three times.

Apart from that, the rock is Jesus.

That is the conclusion of some of the early Holy Fathers. Some say Peter, some say it's his confession of faith.

 

[Jamelia]

Some more stuff from the Bible on the issue of 'rock'....

Ephesians 2:19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit​

and

1 Corinthians 3:10 By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be careful how he builds. 11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ​

we do not follow any one Apostle, but Christ&#8230;

1 Corinthians 1:10 I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought. 11My brothers, some from Chloe's household have informed me that there are quarrels among you. 12What I mean is this: One of you says, &#8220;I follow Paul&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Apollos&#8221;; another, &#8220;I follow Peter&#8221;; still another, &#8220;I follow Christ.&#8221;​

A commentator allegedly said...

&#8221; If therefore this last apostle had been the vicar of Christ, St. Paul would have taken great care not to censure so violently those who belonged to his own colleagues. The same apostle, counting up the offices of the church, mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, doctors, and pastors. Is it to be believed, my venerable brethren, that St. Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, would have forgotten the first of these offices, the papacy, if the papacy had been of divine institution? The forgetfulness appeared to me to be as impossible as if an historian of this Council were not to mention one word of his holiness Pius IX.&#8221;
-Bishop Strossmayer's Alleged Speech In The Vatican Council Of 1870
http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/petra.htm​

A study of the Church Fathers reveals the following facts:
Interpretation of "rock" (by) no. of Fathers
Peter 17
Peter's faith ("Thou are Christ...") 44
Christ 16
The Apostles 8
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm

Of those that do believe it is Peter &#8211; we can add&#8230;

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter! Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as what is obvious to any one at first sight they did not regard the power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing.
http://www.solagratia.org/article.cfm?id=573
​

Augustine (354-430 A.D.), the Bishop of Hippo, asserted that Simon is called &#8220;rock&#8221; (petros) because of the solidity of his profession in contrast to the wavering opinion of the multitudes (115). Thus Augistine said that Peter established the rock of faith (petra) in his profession of Christ. (116) The second century theologian Origen (185-254 A.D.) in a similar fashion stated that &#8220;this rock&#8221; is Peter&#8217;s profession and all those who likewise profess Jesus to be the Christ:

&#8220;Therefore if we, as we have already said, with the Father revealing to us, of the living God, we will become Peter, and certainly it may be said to us by the divine word: &#8216;thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church&#8217; and the rest. A rock is indeed everyone who is an imitator of Christ, from whom they were drinking, that is those who were drinking of the spiritual rock following them... And upon every rock of this kind is built the church of God. For in each and every one of the perfect who have in themselves the combinations of words and deeds and all thoughts which are engaged in blessedness of his type consists the church of God... But if you suppose that the universal church is built by God upon that one man Peter what do you say about James and John...and the rest of the disciples? Indeed it was said to Peter - thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.... it also seems that it was said to all the apostles and to everyone of the faithful perfect, since all are Peter and all are rocks and of these is built the church of Christ.&#8221; (117)
http://www.erikwait.com/index.cgi?action=display_one&story_id=198
​

Notes from above quote
(115) Augustine in fact said, &#8220;The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ.&#8221; Sermon 97 [CXLVII. BEN.] &#8220;On The Same Words Of The Gospel Of John 21:15, &#8216;Simon, Son Of John, Lovest Thou Me More Than These?&#8217;
(116) ugustine in Sermon 26 [LXXVI. BEN.] on Matthew 14:25: &#8220;Of the Lord Walking On The Waves Of The Sea, And Of Peter Tottering&#8221; states, &#8220;...the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, &#8216;But whom say ye that I am?&#8217; Peter answered, &#8216;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.&#8217; One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, &#8216;Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.&#8217; Then He added, &#8216;and I say unto thee.&#8217; As if He had said, &#8216;Because thou hast said unto Me, &#8216;Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;&#8217; I also say unto thee, &#8216;Thou art Peter.&#8217;&#8217; For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. &#8216;Therefore,&#8217; he saith, &#8216;Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock&#8217; which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, &#8216;Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;&#8217; that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, &#8216;will I build My Church.&#8217; I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.&#8217;&#8221; Strangely, Scott Butler ignores this statement by Augustine and instead selectively cites edited quotes from Augustine to convince his readers that Augustine taught that Peter alone was the petra upon which the Church is built in &#8220; Jesus, Peter, & The Keys &#8220; (Santa Barbara, Queenship Publishers, 1996), pg. 248.
(117) Origen, &#8220;Opera,&#8221; 3 Vols. Parisis: J. Parvus and J.B. Ascensius, 1512. Again, Scott Butler in &#8220;Jesus, Peter, & The Keys&#8221; on pages 218-220 misses this quotation from Origen and instead cites edited second hand sources which seem to indicate that Origen supported the Roman Catholic position
(Ibid)

 

[Infiltrator]

The rock definitely is Christ. But I also think that the rock is something more. I think that the rock defines our ability to communicate with God, and for Him to answer our prayers. And in this way we witness that we have taken the Name of Christ upon ourselves as Christians. Christ being the only means to salvation therefore is the rock on which our relationship with God is built.