Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
“You are Petros, and on this rock I will build my church.” (Matt 16:18)
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
Peter’s confession of Christ
We have arrived at ground zero in the Petrine controversy, one of the most bitterly disputed texts in all of sacred scripture. Here the Petrine fact looms most intractably and prominently, resisting all attempts to smooth it over or roll it aside. It is a sad irony that the rock to which Jesus attached such importance has become a stone of stumbling for so many, just as the primacy of Rome, for some an icon, almost a sacrament, of unity, has become a source of division.
At the same time, there have been encouraging developments. There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is “not [Christ] himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself” (Chamblin 742). That is strongly put, since Peter the rock cannot be separated from the faith of his confession, but the rock has direct reference to Peter himself, not just the faith of his confession, as Evangelical and Protestant scholars now widely and correctly affirm.
Among the chorus of voices in this regard, as I will document eventually, are F. F. Bruce, D. A. Carson, Walter Elwell, R. T. France, Herman Ridderbos and Craig Blomberg. Thus Chrys C. Caragounis writes: “After centuries of disagreement it would appear that Protestant and Catholic are at last united in referring the rock upon which the Church according to Mt 16:18 is to be built, to the Apostle Peter” (Caragounis 1).
Ironically, Caragounis, an Eastern Orthodox scholar, makes a contrarian case for identifying the rock as Peter’s confession. In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)
The pericope begins in Matthew 16:13, in which Jesus asks the Twelve what people are saying about him, and receives a number of different answers: John the Baptist, Elijah, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.
Then comes the crucial question: “But who do you say I am?” As often elsewhere, Peter speaks up for the Twelve: “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
The next three verses are a remarkable composition, well capable of bearing all the critical scrutiny they have received. Here is Jesus’ reply in full:
1. Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona!
1a. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you,
1b. but my Father who is in heaven.
2. And I tell you, you are Petros,
2a. and on this rock I will build my church,
2b. and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it.
3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,
3a. and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,
3b. and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The above blocking highlights a point made by Jimmy Akin (I haven’t seen it developed in this form by anyone else) regarding the three-part structure of each of the three verses. Each verse starts with a major or leading clause, followed by a supporting couplet, the two clauses of which jointly illuminate and expound upon the major clause.
What is more, in each of the three leading clauses, Jesus both addresses Peter and makes a pronouncement regarding Peter: “1. Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona! … 2. And I tell you, you are Petros … 3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” As we will see, each of these pronouncements is in some way unparalleled; each is extraordinary in itself, and all three together are an astonishing manifesto on Peter’s behalf.
It is not surprising, then, that each of the three major Petrine pronouncements is followed by a couplet illuminating or commenting upon what Jesus has just said to Peter and about Peter. This is so clear that no one denies this in the first or third verses; everyone recognizes that “Flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven” is a commentary on “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona”, and that “whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven / and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” is a commentary on “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.”
Yet sandwiched between those two verses is a verse that follows precisely the same pattern, yet here the pattern has historically been contested by some. It has been argued that “On this rock I will build my church / and the powers of death shall not prevail against it” is not a commentary on “I tell you, you are Petros”; that after saying “You are Petros,” Jesus in effect changes the subject from the previous thought, merely punning on Petros in order to talk about some quite distinct petra — only to return to Peter in the following verse.
Start at the beginning. Jesus opens with an unparalleled benediction: “Blessed are you, Simon bar-Jona!” Nowhere else in the Gospels does Jesus pronounce such a blessing on any individual; Peter aside, people are pronounced blessed by Jesus only in groups or classes, in the abstract, or both. To find this singular beatitude at the outset of this crucial Petrine text is itself a notable token of the Petrine fact.
Jesus then goes on to expound upon the benediction of this first remarkable clause in a supporting couplet clarifying Peter’s beatitude: “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you / but my Father who is in heaven.” Peter’s beatitude is not something he achieved himself; it is the gift of the Father.
It must be remembered, too, that the blessing is counter-balanced six verses by the equally singular rebuke, “Get behind me, Satan!” (or “Get behind me, you satan!”). Most of Jesus’ maledictions, like his blessings, are aimed at groups (“Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites,” Matt 23:13ff), and even Herod was only called a fox (Luke 13:32). Peter alone is called by that harsh word, adversary, that denotes the enemy of mankind.
Once again, then, the point is not that Peter was personally uniquely holy or favored only in positive ways; he wasn’t. Rather, the point is simply Peter’s unique prominence, partly rooted perhaps in his own qualities for good and for ill, but also bound up in Jesus’ own choice, resulting in unique privileges but also unique chastenings. “Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required” (Luke 12:48): Peter is singularly blessed and singularly chastised; in either case his position is unique.
Then comes the second leading clause: “And I say to you, you are Petros.” The first word, kagõ (a contraction of “And I”), is emphatic (the Greek doesn’t require the explicit first-personal pronoun); Jesus underscores that it is he, the Messiah confessed by Peter, who speaks. Jesus may also be counterpointing his own words to the Father’s gift to Peter; the Father has revealed Jesus’ identity to Peter, and now it is the Son’s turn to reveal something to Peter.
“You are Petros.” Peter has told Jesus who he is (“You are the Messiah”); now Jesus tells Peter who he is. Is this merely declarative, or performative? Is Jesus making an observation, or giving Peter his new name here and now?
John 1:42 relates Jesus telling Peter at their first meeting, “You will be called Kephas,” a saying that could be read as either as an enactment or as a proleptic or prophetic utterance (the future tense could mean either “from this point forward” or “at some point in the future”). In Mark 3 the list of the Twelve begins “Simon whom he surnamed Peter,” but ends with “Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him” (Mark 3:15-19). Obviously Judas has not already betrayed Jesus in chapter 3; by the same token, we cannot conclude that Jesus has already surnamed Simon Peter at that point in the narrative.
The Evangelists all use the name Peter early on. In fact, John 1 refers to “Simon Peter” in verse 40, before Jesus and Peter have even met, and Matthew likewise identifies the apostle as “Simon who is called Peter” (Matt 4:18) the moment Jesus sees him, before they have spoken. It is reasonable to conclude that the Gospels use the name Peter from the start because that is the name readers know him by; it doesn’t tell us when he first began to go by that name.
Other than John 1:42, then, there is no clear evidence of Jesus or anyone else calling Peter Kephas or Petros prior to Matthew 16:18. On the contrary, what evidence we have suggests that Jesus continued to use the name Simon (e.g., Matt 17:25, Mark 14:37, Luke 22:31, John 21:15, the late exception being Luke 22:34). The question, then, is whether Jesus’ words to Peter at their meeting — “You will be called Kephas” — are grounds for concluding that henceforth the apostle began to be known by that surname.
It seems an open question. It’s possible that Jesus and others began to call Simon Kephas right away, or that the surname caught on at some other point prior to Matthew 16. The Gospels offer scant evidence either way.
On the one hand, there is no indication in John 1 that anyone but Andrew heard the saying; if Jesus himself continued to use Simon’s given name, it seems plausible that Peter’s brother (and business partners James and John), who had always called him Simon, would similarly continue to call him the name they had always used. On the other hand, it’s also plausible that Andrew might at least have told James and John about the strange saying, so that eventually all the Twelve would know the story, and Simon might start to be known as Kephas or Petros without another word from Jesus after John 1:42.
What seems certain is that Matthew 16 describes an event that would certainly have caused the surname to stick if it hadn’t already. Not only is it an emphatic, present-tense pronouncement before all the Twelve, the occasion of Peter’s confession is the sort of circumstance that elicits surnames from rabbis and other authorities. (For example, Barnabas, Son of Encouragement, was the surname given to Joseph of Cyprus by the apostles in Acts 4:36, possibly in connection with the act described in the next verse, i.e., laying at the apostles’ feet the money from the sale of his field. Certainly he was not surnamed Barnabas out of the blue.)
It is also worth noting that the structure of verse 18 is notably similar to the texts in Genesis in which Abram, Sarai and Jacob receive their new names, followed by an exposition of the significance of the new name:
No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham;
for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.
I will make you exceedingly fruitful;
and I will make nations of you,
and kings shall come forth from you.” (Genesis 17:5-6)As for Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name.
I will bless her,
and moreover I will give you a son by her;
I will bless her,
and she shall be a mother of nations;
kings of peoples shall come from her. (Gen 17:15-16)Your name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel,
for you have striven with God and with men,
and have prevailed. (Gen 32:28)
The parallels are most striking in the case of Abraham and Sarah, where the commentary takes the form of an account of the inaugural role they will have in the new stage of God’s plan of salvation. Jacob’s name change also seems generally indicative of his election for the new stage in God’s plan (though this point isn’t explicitly drawn out in the commentary on the name).
If Jesus is not effectively renaming Peter in Matthew 16, he seems to be doing something remarkably similar. At the very least, even if Peter already went by his surname, the renewed pronouncement of the surname, in the solemn and emphatic context of the passage, seems to invest it with further significance — significance that almost goes beyond a mere surname, that is more like a new identity and a new mission. (It may even be worth noting here that Jacob’s new name Israel is also given twice, in Gen 32:28 and again in Gen 35:10 — and that even after both renamings Israel also continues to be called Jacob both by the sacred writer and even by God, e.g., Gen 46:2-5, etc.)
All of this suggests that the pronouncement of Peter’s new name reflects a new role in Jesus’ messianic plan, one that seems to call for further explication. As previously noted, efforts have been made, especially in the past, to deny that “upon this rock” constitutes such commentary, to argue that it must refer to some distinct petra. Not until verse 19, on this reading, does Jesus say more about Peter’s new role. The effect seems not unlike revising Genesis 17:5-6 to read, “No longer shall your name be Abram [exalted father], but your name shall be Abraham [father of a multitude], and I the Lord shall be exalted among the nations, and a father to my people. And I will make you exceedingly fruitful…”
If “this rock” is not Peter, what is it? There’s the rub. Literarily, the demonstrative pronoun “this” implies an antecedent. Some older Protestant writers tried to float the notion that Jesus might have gestured toward himself as he said “this rock” — an exegetical conceit that would reduce Matthew’s purpose to merely relating dialogue without conveying meaning (not to mention being difficult to reconcile with sola scriptura, for what that’s worth). In the absence of other indication, the Gospel text clearly indicates a continuation of thought, not a change of subject.
The conjunction “and” (kai) links the second clause (“upon this rock”) to the main clause (“I say to you, you are Petros”). Peter is the topic of the preceding and following verses. The connection between Petros and petra is unmistakable; even on the theory that Jesus was merely punning on Petros but talking about something else, the pun itself presupposes that Petros is the first thing we think of when we hear petra.
Petros, then, is the obvious antecedent, petra the obvious continuation of thought between “You are Petros” and “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” Only if there were some insurmountable obstacle to identifying Petros as petra would it be feasible to set aside that connection and cast about for more remote, less obvious possible referents: Peter’s confession, Peter’s faith, the truth about Christ, Christ himself.
The next post will examine proposed obstacles to identifying Peter as the rock, as well as difficulties with alternate proposals. More to come.
NOTE: This series is a work in progress. See Part 1 updates including bibliography in progress. As I add sources and update past posts I will continue to expand the bibliography.
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8
Stellar work, SDG.
Considering your interlocutor who occasioned these postes, you have certainly have gone above and beyond the call of duty.
Thank you.
SDG,
Care to speculate why the name change does not occur in the other two synoptics?
The Chicken
Chicken, that’ll be in the next post. 😉
I recall hearing one radio preacher say that the words were actually “but upon this rock…” rather than “and”. So much for the integrity of Scripture if we can go around completely rewriting it. Might as well rewrite some of the Ten Commandments to remove a few “not”s.
I almost got into this in my post, and may go back and add something in on it.
The Greek conjunction is kai. Craig S. Keener writes in A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew that “the copulative kai almost always means ‘and'” (p. 427). That might be a bit strongly put, but at any rate “and” is almost always a valid translation of the copulative kai, even when the context would also permit “yet” or “but” as a valid rendition of the sense.
A typical example of kai where but would be permissible is Matthew 12:39: “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign; kai no sign shall be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah.” The sense of this can be rendered “but no sign shall be given to it” — but the sense is also accurately rendered as “and no sign shall be given to it.”
Essentially, the basic meaning is something like “added to,” e.g., adding one thought to another or one item in a list to another. AFAIK, the word kai almost never implies adversative force in itself; that must always be derived from the context.
Thus, it is illegitimate to translate Matthew 16:18 as “You are Petros, but upon this rock…” in order to get the adversative leverage to pit Petros against petra. You must make the case without kai; kai won’t help you do it.
Now, if the conjunction were de, you might have more of a leg to stand on (though de also can mean “and” as well as “but”). But it isn’t.
There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself
What’s the pedigree of these alternative explanations? I never heard any of them until I got to college and, by and large, found them refuted in some apologetic literature I picked up somewhere. I don’t know any of the ancient languages, so maybe I’ve just got a tin ear for these things, but while the “You’re Petros/I’m petra” contrast is at least intelligible, none of the others would I expect to hear from a lucid speaker, or read from a competent translator.
The expression, “Kingdom of Heaven,” is only used in Matthew’s Gospel. Part of the key (no pun intended) to understanding this passage is to look at it as a commentary on the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus makes a connection between the Church he will build and the Kingdom of Heaven. This is the first veiled reference to the fact that the Church will have a visible part and an invisible part, the Church Militant and the Church Triumphant.
There is a lot to say about the keys, but I don’t want to subject anyone, yet again, to my speculations.
The Chicken
There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession, nor the truth that Peter confesses about Christ, nor Christ himself, but Peter himself.
I see you used the word “but”. Per your previous post on “kai” vs “but”, are you intending to imply an “adversative force”, “pitting” Peter “against” his confession, the faith that he shares, and the truth that he confesses?
And what is the significance of “near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally” and how is that even measured? On this very subject, a preacher responded that Jesus said, “what is of human esteem is an abomination in the sight of God.” (Luke 16:15) To which perhaps his flock nodded in near unanimity generally.
“It’s almost like God is messing with us on this one.”
Almost, but no cigar.
There is now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic, that the rock on which Jesus builds his church is neither Peter’s confession, nor the faith of Peter’s confession… but Peter himself.
Are you claiming the “now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally, Protestant as well as Catholic” disagrees with CCC#424? “Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.”
(Not to mention CCC#857 and other teachings, e.g. the Church “was and remains built on the foundation of the Apostles”.)
Clever lad. What I am doing is speaking to the literal sense, the primary referent intended by the author to be understood by his implied audience. That is Peter. Not “Peter-as-opposed-to-his-confession,” nor “Peter-insofar-as-he-confessed-Christ,” etc.
I am intending to imply that CCC §424 does not speak to the literal sense of Matthew 16:18b.
I would expect we could agree that this too does not speak to the literal sense of Matthew 16:18b (as distinct from the literal sense of Ephesians 2:20).
What I am doing is speaking to the literal sense, the primary referent intended by the author to be understood by his implied audience. That is Peter.
In the words of the pope, “After 2,000 years, the “rock” on which the Church is founded remains ever the same: it is the faith of Peter.” Meanwhile, the gist of your words seems to be, “[but] now near unanimity in Bible scholarship generally is that “rock” was not primarily intended to refer to the faith of Peter but to Peter himself.” Perhaps you would say the pope’s words do not express the author’s primary intention. But is it even possible to refer to Peter but not (also) to the faith of Peter? If not, why would the author primarily or otherwise intend what is not possible? And as there would be no “Peter himself is the rock” were it not for the faith of Peter, why would Peter be the primary intended referant but not the faith of Peter?
I do see you said “Peter not Peter-as-opposed-to-his-[faith]”, but unless Peter is opposed to his faith, “Peter-as-opposed-to-his-faith” is nonsense, as is “Peter-but-not-his-faith”. Peter is the rock is the faith of Peter. Why then claim that Peter is the primary intended referant “but not the faith of Peter”? Can it not be that the primary intention is that Peter is the rock is the faith of Peter?
If ‘Peter is the rock is the faith of Peter’, then Peter is the faith of Peter. (A = B = C implies that A = C.) But Peter is not the faith of Peter. If the referent is Peter himself, obviously that includes the faith of Peter, which is a thing that occurs in him, who has received it as a gift from God. If the referent is the faith itself, just as obviously that does not include Peter as a whole.
It would be truer and more intelligible to say that Peter, with his faith and because of it, is the rock. And this answers the false interpretation at issue, which is the idea that the faith itself is the rock, and that Peter is merely incidental. That is an easy trap for an incautious theologian to fall into, especially one who does not wish to accept the Petrine primacy; but it makes the church one abstraction based on another, rather than a living institution composed of human souls.
The Church is not baptism merely, but the community of the baptized; not assembly, but the people who are assembled; not faith, but the communion of those who receive the faith and keep it, beginning with Peter himself.
Because the relevant counter-claim, which I am rejecting, is “The rock is Peter’s-faith-not-Peter-himself.”
That is well said.
Here’s a quote I found from Ratzinger, speaking about the interior basis of the primacy:
“…Is Peter as a PERSON the foundation of the Church, or is his PROFESSION OF FAITH the foundation of the Church? The answer is: The profession of faith exists only as something for which someone is personally responsible, and hence the profession of faith is connected with the person. Conversely, the foundation is not a person reguarded in a metaphysically neutral way, so to speak, but rather the person as bearer of the profession of faith–one without the other would miss the significance of what is meant.”
Ahh… He always seems to know just what to say–that guy should run for pope!
I have revised and clarified the introductory bit as follows:
I think that’s better and clearer, so thanks Terry for your gadflying.
If ‘Peter is the rock is the faith of Peter’, then Peter is the faith of Peter. (A = B = C implies that A = C.)
If you like, we can take the same pieces from the Catechism and plug them into virtually the same formula and get the same result: if ‘Peter is the rock (CCC#552) and the rock is the faith of Peter (CCC#424)’, then Peter is the faith of Peter. It would seem the writers of the Catechism intended we read the pieces, perhaps even in series, but did they intend that such conclusion be derived from those pieces?
If the referent is the faith itself, just as obviously that does not include Peter as a whole.
Peter’s faith involves his whole person, and CCC#424 and the pope used the word “faith” not the phrase “faith itself”. To you, is faith which involves the whole person the same as “faith itself”?
It would be truer and more intelligible to say that Peter, with his faith and because of it, is the rock.
And yet, we have CCC#424 and the pope saying the rock is the faith of Peter, -and- CCC#552 saying Peter is the rock — because of his faith, and the implication according to your formula that Peter is the faith of Peter. Perhaps upon the next millenia, the pope will say instead, “After 3,000 years, the “rock” on which the Church is founded remains ever the same: it is Peter, with his faith and because of it.”
Anyway, however it’s worded, I enjoy the script as it’s written, with the the pope describing us “as actors in a marvelous and splendid adventure” and Peter playing the role of rock. For the role of rock, the director’s instruction of “don’t move” might seem easy, but a lot of people have found it to be hard as rock.
Because the relevant counter-claim, which I am rejecting, is “The rock is Peter’s-faith-not-Peter-himself.”
If the rock is Peter AND the rock is the faith of Peter, also known as “Peter and the faith of Peter”, that too rejects that the rock is Peter’s-faith-not-Peter-himself but does not necessitate that the primary referant is “Peter and not the faith of Peter” also known as “Peter but not the faith of Peter”.
He always seems to know just what to say–that guy should run for pope!
As pope, they still say things like “the rock is the faith of Peter.”
I have revised and clarified the introductory bit as follows
The marvelous and splendid adventure continues.
so thanks Terry for your gadflying
Thank God.
“so thanks Terry for your gadflying
Thank God.
Posted by: Terry | Sep 26, 2009 7:35:33 AM”
If we really want to pick apart language here, as heretics are prone to do, I infer that Terry is stating that he is inspired by God Himself in these combox posts.
The problem many Catholic Apologists get into is trying to argue points from the principals of sola scriptura – alone. 🙂
It is good to do so, at times, to make a defense (i.e. show a basis) of the dogmas of the Church but it almost always degenerates into non-sense at some point because sola scriptura is a heretical concept.
The example here is trying to separate Peter (and his God given faith – meaning grace) from his confession of Jesus as the Christ.
I can no longer separate myself from my confession of faith of Jesus as the Messiah – it is a supernatural gift and a part of who I am.
The burden actually and always rests on the side of those with the novel interpretations. In the case of Peter AND his confession of faith being the rock Jesus founded the Church upon, I find no logical difficulty – they are one and the same but most importantly a supernatural gift from God.
It is the point and purpose of the heretic to divide a truth.
I am not saying that your arguments SDG are non-sense they are very good indeed; just that if someone is pre-disposed to and an adherent of the principals of sola scriptura they will get bogged down into all kinds of textual non-sense to make their justification.
A phrase that many have found helpful in such connections is “at the same time and in the same respect.”
If we really want to pick apart language here, as heretics are prone to do, I infer that Terry is stating that he is inspired by God Himself in these combox posts… if someone is pre-disposed to and an adherent of the principals of sola scriptura they will get bogged down into all kinds of textual non-sense to make their justification
“We are all little pencils in the hand of God, writing His love letters to the world.”
I don’t think Mother Theresa had heretics, militant atheists and blog combox posters in mind with that statement.
Show me context Terry… 🙂
When you love the Lord your God with all your mind, what is on your mind?
“He does the thinking. He does the writing. The pencil has nothing to do with it. The pencil has only to be allowed to be used.”
Be in context.
In context, clearly, Mother Teresa’s words apply poetically to a best-case scenario of holy human existence, giving God the credit for our loving acts. “Little pencils in the hand of God” is not an apt metaphor for all forms of human behavior. Sometimes the things we write are very far from God’s love letters to the world; pencils can also be used for stabbing, or for breaking other pencils.
Terry seems to be more of a white crayon on white paper.
Take care and God bless,
Inocencio
J+M+J
In context, clearly, Mother Teresa’s words apply poetically to a best-case scenario of holy human existence
And the best-case scenario is to be applied practically…
“Make it a practice to judge persons and things in the most favorable light at all times and under all circumstances.” – St. Vincent de Paul (reportedly)
Terry seems to be more of a white crayon on white paper.
Very lovely. It reminds me of “to the pure, all things are pure.” (some say clean instead of pure… or maybe “inocencio”)
And a quote the Chicken posted previously: “No one is to be called an enemy, all are your benefactors, and no one does you harm. You have no enemy except yourselves.” – St. Francis of Assisi
Okay, we’ve had our fun (and we’ve certainly been over this “judge everything in the best possible light” ground before, etc.). Tangent over.
Wait a minute, wait a minute. Where is the word faith ever mentioned in this passage? In fact, Jesus says that Peter was told he was the Messiah by God, himself. If Peter were told by God, then his confession would not be something he could be called a rock for – maybe a telephone receiver. What did Peter assent to? He merely spoke what was given him by God. Peter spoke prophetically.
There is no rock of Peter’s faith, made manifest at this moment, to build a Church on. Peter’s faith would manifest itself, later. One might say that this is prevenient faith.
Terry has misinterpreted his quotation of CCC 424. The faith of the Church was enunciated by Peter in Matthew 16: 18. This is not singularly Peter’s act of faith, at that moment. It is singularly Peter’s act of prophecy and it was a prophecy of the faith of the Church. The gift of faith did not attach itself, personally, to Peter, fully, until Pentecost.
Thus, I conclude that there is no such thing as, “Peter’s faith,” in this passage. It is not, Peter’s confession of faith.” It is, properly speaking, Peter’s confession of THE Faith.” There is a subtle, but important, difference.
If Peter’s faith is not the rock, then something else must be. It could be the faith of the Church, perhaps, but that makes no sense in the passage where Peter’s name is changed, unless Peter’s faith, by itself, were the faith of the Church, and it is not. Popes guard the deposit of faith. They, singularly, are not the faith of the Church.
This strengthens the idea that Peter, himself, is the rock.
The Chicken
Very interesting Chicken. Peter’s “prophesy” was the rock upon which Christ built His Church; I haven’t heard that one argued by Protestant or Orthodox apologists before.
Good point indeed!
Dearest Chicken,
What did Peter assent to? He merely spoke what was given him by God.
Is that like a parrot merely speaks what it’s told without assent?
Terry has misinterpreted his quotation of CCC 424… This is not singularly Peter’s act of faith, at that moment.
Are you sure YOU are not misinterpreting what I said? As CCC#2478 cautions, “Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.”
In case I missed your question, I did not say the rock is “an act” of faith by Peter, whether “at that moment” or any other, nor that it was “singularly Peter’s”. CCC#424 refers to “the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter”, and the pope has repeatedly described it as “the faith of Peter” and expressly as “Peter’s faith”, and as much as Peter shared his faith, you alone in this discussion have tagged it as “singularly Peter’s” (whatever that mean’s to you).
My own lone use of the term “Peter’s faith” was in the sentence “Peter’s faith involves his whole person” and that use was not intended as “singular” to Peter nor intended as a declarative interpretation of the “rock” or specific to any particular Bible passage. It was more broadly a response to an issue about faith which involves the whole person vs “faith itself”. But in regard to “Peter’s faith”, I’m happy to share…
I conclude that there is no such thing as, “Peter’s faith,” in this passage.
That may be — as you’ve privately interpreted the phrase in some “singularly Peter’s act of faith, at that moment” sense, whatever that means to you. But others may speak/read English differently than you, may they not? In Church teaching, we can find assertions that the passage speaks of “the faith of Peter”, “the faith confessed by St. Peter” (as found in CCC#424) and even expressly as “Peter’s faith”, as the pope has said time and time again. For example, pope has told his flock:
“The Church of Christ is built on Peter’s faith and fidelity.”
“In the district of Caesarea Philippi, Simon, son of Jona, called Peter by the Lord, made that profession of faith on which, as on a rock, the Church is built: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16: 16). It is precisely on Peter’s faith, strong as a rock, that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded.”
And, “With immense joy let us unite ourselves with the act of Peter’s faith, in order to proclaim the divinity of Jesus Christ before the Church, before the World, before the angels and before the Eternal Father: Lord Jesus, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’.”
It is not, Peter’s confession of faith.” It is, properly speaking, Peter’s confession of THE Faith.
I welcome everyone to his/her opinion as to what’s “properly speaking”, but allow me to repeat the pope’s statement: “In the district of Caesarea Philippi, Simon, son of Jona, called Peter by the Lord, made that profession of faith on which, as on a rock, the Church is built: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ (Mt 16: 16). It is precisely on Peter’s faith, strong as a rock, that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded.”
In that statement we see that the pope first referred to both “that profession of faith” and “Peter’s faith”, and then followed with “It is precisely on Peter’s faith, strong as a rock, that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded.”
Therefore, consider, is it true that “Terry has misinterpreted his quotation of CCC 424”? Or, perhaps have you projected your own misinterpretation upon Terry (the white crayon on white paper)? Perhaps “Terry merely spoke what’s given by the Vatican” and “the word you hear is not Terry’s but that of the Papa who sent Terry.”
Just some thoughts. Interpret as you may. I claim no interpretation of my own, make no dictate as to “properly speaking”, nor do I or have I claimed that I have any grandiose “inspiration by God Himself in these combox posts”. I leave such claims to others.
“It is precisely on Peter’s faith, strong as a rock, that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded.”
To begin with, you may be interpreting the word faith in a somewhat Protestant sense. Peter’s “faith” was not something of merely believing. In fact, if Peter’s faith (belief) were as strong as a rock, then he would not have, a few minutes later, remonstrated with Jesus about the Cross. How can one believe that one is the Son of God and then be afraid that that Son doesn’t know what he is talking about?
Clearly, the Pope isn’t speaking about Peter’s faith in the sense of a merely individual faith. Not at this point; not on this day in the Bible. One might speak thus, after Pentecost, perhaps.
Now, prophecy has an element of faith in it. In that sense, since at no time in the Bible did Peter ever deny his prophecy of Jesus as the Messiah (from which every thing of the Faith follows), one can say that this aspect of the Faith, as expressed by Peter, is something that he simultaneously has with the Church. Now, that prophecy is as strong as a rock, but other aspects of Peter’s faith are not on this day, per demonstandum by Peter’s remonstration with Jesus.
When the Pope says, “that confession of faith,” and later, “Peter’s faith,” I think he is referring to the same thing: the prophetic utterance of Jesus’s nature.
The Chicken
P. S.
I don’t want to start any rabbit holes, so if this post is going to lead to more and degenerating postings on off-topic items, please ignore it.
Chicken, Chicken, Chicken. You’re playing his game. And you’re not even playing, you’re taking it seriously.
“Interpreting the word faith in a somewhat Protestant sense”? Oh, I don’t think Terry is interpreting anything. He said so, explicitly (“Interpret as you may. I claim no interpretation of my own … I leave such claims to others”).
Terry is playing a game. It’s okay to play if you want to, but don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s a game.
Dear SDG,
Thanks for the caution. Your posts need to be made into a handout. Good for RCIA.
The Chicken
To begin with, you may be interpreting the word faith in a somewhat Protestant sense.
Everything is possible to one who has faith, Jesus said.
What did Peter assent to? He merely spoke what was given him by God.
On the subject of Mt 16:16, the pope said “Faith requires the full submission of intellect and will. Peter’s profession of faith will remain the definitive expression of Christ’s identity.” Are you saying the same thing as the pope? The dictionary has many definitions for “mere”, including “completely fulfilled or developed; absolute” and “nothing more than”.
I’ll add a few more pope quotes about Peter for those who enjoy them… “The Lord Jesus says that the Church is built on rock, and the rock is the faith of Peter,” and “the Church erected on the foundations established by Christ: the faith of Peter,” and “Built on the solid foundations of Peter’s faith, the Church has continued Christ’s mission down the centuries.” And, “Jesus’ prayer safeguards Peter’s faith, that faith which he confessed at Caesarea Philippi: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'(Mt 16:16).” And, “Jesus immediately confirms the value of this profession of faith, stressing that it stems not only from human thought idea but from heavenly inspiration… Faith requires the full submission of intellect and will. Peter’s profession of faith will remain the definitive expression of Christ’s identity.”
The faith of the Church was enunciated by Peter in Matthew 16:18… The gift of faith did not attach itself, personally, to Peter, fully, until Pentecost… This strengthens the idea that Peter, himself, is the rock.
According to the pope, “It is precisely on Peter’s faith, strong as a rock, that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded.” Assuming you’re using the word “faith” as the pope is using the word, and I take what the pope said as true, then according to you, Peter made an enunciation (i.e. “the faith of the Church”) before the foundation for that enunciation (i.e. which would be “Peter’s faith” as the pope said, or as you say: “Peter”) was fully personally attached to Peter. Therefore, if Peter is the foundation/rock as you say, then does your story not mean (as nonsensical as it may seem) that Peter made an enunciation before Peter was fully personally attached to Peter? If so, perhaps you could explain if in your story, does Jesus say “You are not fully, personally attached to Peter” or does he say “You are Peter”?
if Peter’s faith (belief) were as strong as a rock, then he would not have, a few minutes later, remonstrated with Jesus about the Cross.
Peter’s denials prior to Pentecost are a non-issue with regard to “this rock” on which the Church is built in the sense that “the Church was not breathed into existence until Pentecost.” You don’t need a solid foundation until the house is breathed into existence, do you?
Clearly, the Pope isn’t speaking about Peter’s faith in the sense of a merely individual faith.
Perhaps yes and no? In regard to the pope’s description that “Jesus’ prayer safeguards Peter’s faith, that faith which he confessed at Caesarea Philippi,” the quote of Jesus from Lk 22:32 (NAB) says, “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail.” Not all translations insert the word “own”, but they generally all say “your faith”. Perhaps you can tell me if the Greek source uses a “singular” form for “your faith”? Whether it does or not, the pope teaches that “it is precisely on Peter’s faith… that the faith of the Church, and therefore our faith, is founded”, and the rest of the Lk 22:32 verse goes on to say “and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.” And although faith is a personal act, it’s not an isolated act. No one believes alone, just as no one lives alone, and Peter didn’t give himself faith just as Peter didn’t give himself life. Each believer is a link in the great chain of believers. In the sense that we’re all chained together, who has a “merely individual faith” or even an individual life? And yet, the pope talks about individuals quite often, including Peter.
[Note to those who may have a somewhat Protestant or somewhat Catholic understanding: None of the above is intended to say Peter is not the rock, or that Peter’s faith is not the rock.]
Terry is playing a game… It’s okay to play… Good for RCIA
Is it? I hear they play games in Sunday school, for example: “In the game Love-Toss, we don’t hold on to the ball, we pass it on. In the same way, if we have Jesus living in us, we must pass on his love to those around us!” That might be adapted for Peter’s faith: “The believer has received faith from others and should hand it on to others.”
“You don’t need a solid foundation until the house is breathed into existence, do you?”
Ummm… not that I’m an expert, but I did work in construction long enough to know that you build the foundation first, and then the house. I never saw anyone who waited to lay the foundation until the walls were going up.
Reminds me of a joke;
1st Man “Excuse me, sir, but did you want us to build your house from the bottom up, or from the top down?”
2nd Man “Why… from the bottom up, you idiot.”
First Man “Doggone it! Now we’ll have to tear it down and start over.”
Of course, Jesus was a carpenter and understood such logical subtleties.
I never saw anyone who waited to lay the foundation until the walls were going up.
What I said was “You don’t need a solid foundation until the house is breathed into existence, do you?” By that, a “solid foundation” is a completed foundation, i.e. ready to be built upon, not an undone foundation (“waited to lay the foundation”) as you made it out to be. Thus, if the house which goes on top of the foundation isn’t going up before June 1st, I would not need a completed foundation until the start of June 1st. Is that not so?
Oh, why quibble about units of time? What is “June 1st”, after all?
I’m happy you agree that a completed foundation is needed *before* the house is built.
What Chicken is saying (I think) is that Peter’s denials are evidence (not proof) of the fact that he had not yet experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, after which his faith became more, shall we say, Rock-like.
Peter’s denials are evidence (not proof) of the fact that he had not yet experienced the indwelling of the Holy Spirit
Is Peter’s profession of faith not proof that he had?
“No one can say, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ except by the Holy Spirit.”
“Peter’s profession of faith will remain the definitive expression of Christ’s identity.”
“Whoever acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God remains in him and he in God.”
I may respond to those points, but not tonight. This is one problem of the Internet. It almost forces people to be awake twenty-four hours a day. The Internet never sleeps.
The Chicken
I think there is a difference between having the Holy Spirit inspire you at times as opposed to the Holy Spirit physically dwelling within you.
When I became a believer in the Resurrection of Jesus I was converted more so from the outside. However after my Baptism and Confirmation I became a beliver in the ‘Catholic sense’ knowing without a doubt that the Holy Spirit dwelt within the Catholic Church and guided it. In the same fashion that the Apostles spoke for the Holy Spirit at the council of Jerusalem, the very same Church spoke for the Holy Spirt at the subsequent councils.