Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Baptist John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) on the Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
reprinted by Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Classics, 1990 ^ | 1886 | John Albert Broadus

Posted on 11/27/2011 1:41:12 PM PST by narses

As Peter means rock, the natural interpretation is that 'upon this rock' means upon thee. No other explanation would probably at the present day be attempted, but for the fact that the obvious meaning has been abused by Papists to the support of their theory. But we must not allow the abuse of a truth to turn us away from its use; nor must the convenience of religious controversy determine our interpretation of Scripture teaching. . . .

Some hold that such a play upon words, "thou art Rock, and on this rock," is unworthy of our Lord. But there is a play upon words, understand as you may. It is an even more far-fetched and harsh play upon words if we understand the rock to be Christ; and a very feeble and almost unmeaning play upon words if the rock is Peter's confession. . . .

Late Jewish writings speak of Abraham as the rock, or of the patriarchs as the rocks, on which God laid the foundation of the world.

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros, and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or a fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed (see Lid. and Scott). It is worthy of notice, too, that Jesus himself is called lithos in 1 Pet. 2:5 ff. Again if petros had been used both times in the Greek, it would have meant, "Thou art Peter, and on this Peter," without distinctly showing the play upon words; and it would not have been natural for Matthew to write, 'thou art petra' (feminine), when he has been constantly writing the apostle's name Simon Petros (masculine). But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction.

(p. 355)

Let it be observed that Jesus could not here mean himself by the rock, consistently with the image, because he is the builder. To say, "I will build . . . I am the rock on which I will build," would be a very confused image. The suggestion of some expositors that in saying 'thou art Peter and on this rock' he pointed at himself, involves an artificiality which to some minds is repulsive.

(p. 356)

The Protestant reluctance to admit that the rock means Peter really plays into the hands of the Romish controversialists. It favors the impression that conceding that point would be conceding all that the Romanist claims . . . Now to take Peter as the rock is certainly the most natural and obvious meaning. And to make this the life or death issue is to give the Romanist a serious polemical advantage. In general, it is a great principle of Biblical interpretation to take the most obvious meaning of any phrase, unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.

To understand that Peter is here the rock is not forbidden by the fact that other images are drawn from the same source. In 1 Cor. 3:10 ff., Paul speaks of himself as master-builder (architect), and other teachers also as builders, Christ being the only foundation. In Eph. 2:19 ff. he makes the apostles and prophets the foundation, with Christ as cornerstone. So in Rev. 21:14 the names of the twelve apostles are engraved on the twelve foundations of the city walls, which makes the apostles in one sense the entire foundation. In 1 Peter 2:4 ff. all Christians are living stones . . .

(p. 357)


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism
KEYWORDS: baptist; broadus; johnalbertbroadus; mattchapter16verse18; matthew; matthew16; peter

1 posted on 11/27/2011 1:41:12 PM PST by narses
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: narses; crusadersoldier; Ellzeena; Anvilhead; stonehouse01; Goreknowshowtocheat; ...
+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.


2 posted on 11/27/2011 1:42:23 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges. ref

3 posted on 11/27/2011 1:50:15 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges. ref

4 posted on 11/27/2011 1:50:21 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges. ref

5 posted on 11/27/2011 1:50:29 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Thanks!
Thanks!
Thanks!
:)


6 posted on 11/27/2011 1:54:02 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: narses

Of course, The Church at Antioch, founded by St.s Peter and Paul, preceed the Church at Rome. Let’s face it, politics dominated The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church’s organizational structure, and still does today. Theology is not much of an issue.


7 posted on 11/27/2011 2:21:10 PM PST by firebasecody (Orthodoxy, proclaiming the Truth since AD 33)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: firebasecody; narses
The Church at Antioch, founded by St.s Peter and Paul, preceed the Church at Rome.

Thank you for pointing that out!

Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.

While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:

"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).

Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.

To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:

CATHOLIC RITES AND CHURCHES

The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).

A Roman rite Catholic may attend any Eastern Catholic Liturgy and fulfill his or her obligations at any Eastern Catholic Parish. A Roman rite Catholic may join any Eastern Catholic Parish and receive any sacrament from an Eastern Catholic priest, since all belong to the Catholic Church as a whole. I am a Roman Catholic practicing my faith at a Maronite Catholic Church. Like the Chaldeans, the Maronites retain Aramaic for the Consecration. The church traces its origins to Antioch where Peter served as bishop before proceeding to Rome. It is as close as one comes to being at the Last Supper.

8 posted on 11/27/2011 2:55:46 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: narses; smvoice; metmom; boatbums
>> unless it would thus yield a sense hopelessly in conflict with the unambiguous teaching of other passages.<<

Like these.

Deut. 32:4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.

2 Sam. 22:2 And he said, The LORD is my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; 3 The God of my rock; in him will I trust: he is my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my high tower, and my refuge, my saviour; thou savest me from violence.

Psalm 18:31, "And who is a rock, except our God."

Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."

Rom. 9:33, "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense, and he who believes in Him will not be disappointed."

1 Cor. 3:11, "For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ,"

1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."

1 Pet. 2:8, speaking of Jesus says that he is "A stone of stumbling and a rock (petra) of offense"; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed."

1 Peter 2:4 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.

Ephesians 2:18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. 19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; 20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

Not a special carved out place for Peter in any one of them In fact, it includes all the Apostles being built around the corner stone of Jesus the one true Rock of our salvation.

9 posted on 11/27/2011 4:19:15 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Nope. Fail. Again.


10 posted on 11/27/2011 4:20:42 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: NYer

[16] Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. [17] And Jesus answering, said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. [18] And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [19] And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.


11 posted on 11/27/2011 4:25:24 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: narses

The RCC is about as close to being built on the priciples of he Jesus and the Apostles as this country is today on the principles of the founding fathers.


12 posted on 11/27/2011 4:29:27 PM PST by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: narses
Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.1

You see, it was by this human form that the Lord-that is, the form of a servant: he emptied himself, taking the form of a servant (Phil 2:7); so it was by this form of a servant that Peter's affection was also held captive, when he was afraid of the one whom he loved so much having to die. He loved the Lord Jesus Christ, you see, as one human being loves another; as being of flesh loves a being of flesh, not as spiritual being loves the divine majesty. How can we be sure of this? Because when the Lord had been questioning his disciples about who he was said to be by the people, and they had given the opinions of others as they recalled them, that some said he was John, others Elijah, others Jeremiah or one of the prophets, he said to them, You, though, who do you say that I am? And Peter, one speaking for the rest of them, one for all, said, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God (Mt 16:15-16). Excellent, couldn't be more true; rightly did he deserve to receive a reply like this: Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, because you have told me; you have said something; hear something; you have made a confession, receive a blessing; so: And I tell you: you are Peter; because I am the rock, you are Rocky, Peter-I mean, rock doesn't come from Rocky, but Rocky from rock, just as Christ doesn't come from Christian, but Christian from Christ; and upon this rock I will build my Church (Mt 16:17-18); not upon Peter, or Rocky, which is what you are, but upon the rock which you have confessed. I will build my Church though; I will build you, because in this answer of yours you represent the Church.2

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.3

The blessed Peter, the first of the apostles, the ardent lover of Christ, who was found worthy to hear, 'And I say to you, that you are Peter.' He himself, you see, had just said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Christ said to him, 'And I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' (Mt. 16:16, 18). Upon this rock I will build the faith which you have just confessed. Upon what you have just said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church; because you are Peter. Peter, Rocky, from rock, not rock from Rocky. Peter comes from 'petra', rock, in exactly the same way as Christian comes from Christ. Do you want to know what rock Peter is called after? Listen to Paul: 'I would not have you ignorant, brothers,' the apostle of Christ says; 'I would not have you ignorant, brothers, that our fathers were all under the cloud, and all passed through the sea, and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the rock that was following them, and the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:1-4). There you have where Rocky, Peter, is from. Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, 'To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven' (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn't just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter's acknowledged pre-eminence, that he stood for the Church's universality and unity, when he was told, 'To you I am entrusting,' what has in fact been entrusted to all. Peter had already said to him, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' He had already heard, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her' (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where's the rock? Where's the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That's why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn't lived.18

When Christ said, Who do you say that I am? Peter answered, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And the Lord said to him: Blessed are you Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, as it has to those who call me a prophet, but my Father, who is in heaven; and I say to you, you are Peter (Mt. 16:15-18). You have said to me, let me say to you; you have made your confession of faith, now hear my blessing.

You see, the Lord had said about himself what was less important, and Peter had told him what was more important. In the Lord Jesus Christ, after all, what was less important was his being the Son of man; what was more important was his being the Son of God. He mentioned the less important thing, because he humbled himself; the one whom he exalted mentioned the more important one. Upon this rock, said the Lord, I will build my Church. Upon this confession, upon this that you said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer her (Mt. 16:18).19

We know what rock is; and yet a hard and obstinate person is called a rock, and a solid, immovable person is called rock. In praise you take the rock's solidity, in blame you take its hardness. We know the solidity of the rock, and we accept Christ as the rock: Now the rock was Christ (1 Cor. 10:4).21

Sermons from St. Augustine

From The Patristic Exegesis of the Rock of Matthew 16:18 For additional comments from Augustine as well as:

Ambrose, Ambrosiaster, Aphraates, Apostolical Constitutions, Asterius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, Basil of Seleucia, Bede, Cassiodorus, Cassian (John), Chrysostom(John), Chrysologus (Peter), Cyprian, Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Didymus the Blind, Epiphanius, Ephrem Syrus, Eusebius, Firmicus Maternus, Firmilian, Fulgentius, Gaudentius of Brescia, Gregory the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary of Poitiers, Ignatius, Isidore of Pelusium, Isidore of Seville, James of Nisbis, Jerome, John of Damascus, Maximus of Turin, Nilus of Ancyra, Origen, Pacian, Palladius of Helenopolis, Paschasius Radbertus, Paul of Emessa, Paul Orosius, Paulinus of Nola, Prosper of Aquitaine, Tertullian, Theodoret, Comments of 6th Century Palestinian and Syriac Clergy from a Letter to Emperor Justin, Comments of Chrysostom, Cyril or Origen falsely attributed to Victor of Antioch

See:http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

13 posted on 11/27/2011 4:47:52 PM PST by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: narses

If Jesus meant, “You Peter will be my Vicar, and act infallibly for me”, he sure had an odd way of saying it. I can’t help but think that if Jesus wanted Peter to be the earthly head of the Church, he would have said so. At least once.

As in

“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. But when I go, Peter will be here. He will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.”


14 posted on 11/27/2011 4:54:17 PM PST by Mr Rogers ("they found themselves made strangers in their own country")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

15 posted on 11/27/2011 4:54:52 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

J.N.D. Kelly, one of the greatest patristic scholars of the 20th century, and an Anglican, writes to the contrary in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines (HarperSanFrancisco, 1978) :

“According to him [St. Augustine], the Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the mother of Christians [Ep 34:3; Serm 22:9]. There is no salvation apart from it; schismatics can have the faith and sacraments....but cannot put them to a profitable use since the Holy Spirit is only bestowed in the Church [De bapt 4:24; 7:87; Serm ad Caes 6]....It goes without saying that Augustine identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian, Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the fulfilment of the divine plan.” (Kelly, page 412, 413, 417)

In further support of the above statement from J.N.D. Kelly, the following shall be sufficient proof that St. Augustine, and the Catholic Church of his day (late 4th/early 5th century), believed that

(1) the Bishop of Rome, as successor of St. Peter, held the primacy of jurisdiction in the Church;

(2) the Pope in this position had the final say on matters of doctrine (we shall discuss the history of the Pelagian heresy) and was indeed the final arbiter of truth and thus infallible;

(3) St. Augustine’s “Rome has spoken; the case is closed” is indeed an accurate summary of his belief on the matter (from his Sermons 131:10);

(4) Further, we shall discuss the role of the African bishops, and Popes Innocent I and Zosimus (the latter is used as an instance of “papal fallibility”) during the Pelagian controversy

posted from philvaz.com

this is what St Augustine really believed.

unlike BB, St Augustine held the Apostolic Faith as taught and believed in the Catholic Church.


16 posted on 11/27/2011 5:28:16 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

hey BB,

shall we look at what all these great men of God believed about baptismal regeneration and the Real Presence in the Eucharist?

please throw me in that briar patch.


17 posted on 11/27/2011 5:35:55 PM PST by one Lord one faith one baptism
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: narses

The author of this piece is wrong I believe

Mt 16:13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
Mt 16:14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
Mt 16:15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
Mt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
Mt 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar–jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
Mt 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.
Mt 16:19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mt 16:20 Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
Mt 16:21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Mt 16:22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
Mt 16:23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.

The very start of this conversation concerned, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”

the correct answer, given by Peter, was THE ROCK Jesus spoke of:” Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

That is the key to it all. What other foundation would the Son of God build upon, a man who Jesus called SATAN in the following verses?

That Jesus is the Christ is enough. The Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Saviour of the world.

THAT is the ROCK which Jesus spoke of.

To say a MAN IN THE FLESH is that rock is blasphemy.


18 posted on 11/27/2011 6:14:15 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon

“To say a MAN IN THE FLESH is that rock is blasphemy.”

Nope. Wrong.


19 posted on 11/27/2011 6:17:01 PM PST by narses (what you bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and what you loose upon earth, shall be ..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: narses
The ROCK issue is solved in Scripture many times

1Cor 3:11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

While men chosen by God can be used to do foundational work, they are not above Christ, nor are any chief, Christ is the Chief foundation stone:
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner [stone];

Did Abraham look for a city whose builder and maker was from a man?
Heb 11:8 By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went.
Heb 11:9 By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as [in] a strange country, dwelling in tabernacles with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise:
Heb 11:10 For he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker [is] God.

The new Jerusalem coming, is Peter prominent in that new Jerusalem? Or is he no different than the other 12?
Rev 21:10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,
Rev 21:11 Having the glory of God: and her light [was] like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;
Rev 21:12 And had a wall great and high, [and] had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are [the names] of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel:
Rev 21:13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates.
Rev 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Because, after all, many errors are made based on that false premise, that Peter is THE ROCK, some even falsely say peter was the Apostle to the Gentiles, when the Bible clearly says otherwise

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

20 posted on 11/27/2011 6:32:24 PM PST by RaceBannon (Ron Paul is to the Constitution what Fred Phelps is to the Bible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

The Pope did not have the “infallibility” issue until Vatican I.

The only title he was given by the ancient Church was Primus Inter Pares, or first among equals. This was clearly stated in the Ecumenical Councils that it was because Rome was the Imperial City. Later this honor was moved to Constantinople.


21 posted on 11/27/2011 9:10:00 PM PST by TexConfederate1861 (Surrender means that the history of this heroic struggle will be written by the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: boatbums
Out Of Context

William Webster is Famous for it Otherwise Why does St Augustine use the following to defend the Supreme Bishop or Pope.

Letter 53 (A.D. 400) For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius..

22 posted on 11/27/2011 9:16:21 PM PST by johngrace (1 John 4!- declared at every Sunday Mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: All
Saint Augustine

Tractate 7 (John 1:34-51)

What is great to the Lord? He knew all the names of His own saints, whom He predestinated before the foundation of the world; and dost thou wonder that He said to one man, Thou art the son of this man, and thou shall be called this or that? Is it a great matter that He changed his name, and converted it from Simon to Peter? Peter is from petra, a rock, but the petra [rock]; is the Church; in the name of Peter, then, was the Church figured...Read More[Read More]

Tractate 11 (John 2:23-3:5)

When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, "Will ye also go away?" Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life." Pleasantly savored the Lord's flesh in his mouth...

23 posted on 11/27/2011 9:33:25 PM PST by johngrace (1 John 4!- declared at every Sunday Mass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: narses

The Rock in Mat. 16:18 is the same rock Jesus talks about in Mat. 7:24-27. Scripture interprets scripture.


24 posted on 11/28/2011 4:54:20 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: circlecity

St. John Chrysostom comments that the rock is St. Peter’s confession of faith in his Commentary of the Gospel of Matthew.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.

Then He mentions also another honor. And I also will give you the keys of the heavens. But what is this, And I also will give you? As the Father has given you to know me, so will I also give you.

And He said not, I will entreat the Father (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, I will give you. What dost Thou give? Tell me. The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven. How then is it not His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left, Matthew 20:23 when He says, I will give you?

Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made): but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: I say unto you, You are Peter; I will build the Church; I will give you the keys of Heaven.

4. And then, when He had so said, He charged them that they should tell no man that He was the Christ. Matthew 16:20

And why did He charge them? That when the things which offend are taken out of the way, and the cross is accomplished, and the rest of His sufferings fulfilled, and when there is nothing any more to interrupt and disturb the faith of the people in Him, the right opinion concerning Him may be engraven pure and immovable in the mind of the hearers. For, in truth, His power had not yet clearly shone forth. Accordingly it was His will then to be preached by them, when both the plain truth of the facts, and the power of His deeds were pleading in support of the assertions of the apostles. For it was by no means the same thing to see Him in Palestine, now working miracles, and now insulted and persecuted (and especially when the very cross was presently to follow the miracles that were happening); and to behold him everywhere in the world, adored and believed, and no more suffering anything, such as He had suffered.

Therefore He bids them tell no man. For that which has been once rooted and then plucked up, would hardly, if planted, again be retained among the many; but that which, once fixed, has remained immovable, and has suffered injury from no quarter, easily mounts up, and advances to a greater growth.

And if they who had enjoyed the benefit of many miracles, and had had part in so many unutterable mysteries, were offended by the mere hearing of it; or rather not these only, but even the leader of them all, Peter; consider what it was likely the common sort should feel, being first told that He is the Son of God, then seeing Him even crucified and spit upon, and that without knowledge of the secret of those mysteries, or participation in the gift of the Holy Ghost. For if to His disciples He said, I have many things to say unto you, but you cannot bear them now; John 16:12 much more would the rest of the people have utterly failed, had the chiefest of these mysteries been revealed to them before the proper time. Accordingly He forbids them to tell.

And to instruct you how great a thing it was, their afterwards learning His doctrine complete, when the things that offend had passed by; learn it from this same leader of theirs. For this very Peter, he who after so many miracles proved so weak as even to deny Him, and to be in fear of a mean damsel; after the cross had come forth, and he had received the certain proofs of the resurrection, and there was nothing more to offend and trouble him, retained the teaching of the Spirit so immovable, that more vehemently than a lion he sprang upon the people of the Jews, for all the dangers and innumerable deaths which were threatened.

With reason then did He bid them not tell the many before the crucifixion, since not even to them that were to teach did He venture to commit all before the crucifixion. For I have many things to say unto you, says He, but you cannot bear them now.

And of the things too that He did say, they do not understand many, which He did not make plain before the crucifixion. At least when He was risen from the dead, then and not before they knew some of His sayings.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

But St. Augustine argues that St. Peter himself was the rock of the Church.

AUG; I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. But I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, you are Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church, as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, You are Christ, the Son of the living God; and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, you art the rock, but, you are Peter. But the rock was Christ, whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.
http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea-Matthew16.php

The monarchical curial primacy enjoyed by the Pope of Rome is the product of cultural and historical concerns and not necessarily scripture or universally accepted tradition.

The Melkite Catholic Church accepts the primacy of the Pope, but it is viscerally opposed to Roman centralism.


25 posted on 11/28/2011 7:44:21 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: one Lord one faith one baptism

There’s a bit of a difference between Rome as the final court of appeal as is spelled out in Canons 3, 4, 5 & 9 of the Council of Sardica and the centralized reformed papacy that emerged in the Middle Ages.

The Eastern patriarchates remained self-governing and accepted Rome’s ability to hear appeals, but the idea of the Pope acting unilaterally as a judge was unheard of.

When Pope St. Nicholas judged St. Photios of Constantinople in the 9th century, the Byzantines were aghast because there weren’t any canons that recognized the Pope’s ability to intervene on his own without an appeal.

Canon 3

Greek

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.

Latin

Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance upon invitation from their brethren, that we seem not to close the door of charity.

But if in any province a bishop have a matter in dispute against his brother bishop, one of the two shall not call in as judge a bishop from another province.

But if judgment have gone against a bishop in any cause, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it be your pleasure, honour the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall judge that the case should be retried, let that be done, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall find that the case is of such a sort that the former decision need not be disturbed, what he has decreed shall be confirmed. Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered, It is our pleasure.

Canon 4

Greek

Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

Latin

Bishop Gaudentius said: It ought to be added, if it be your pleasure, to this sentence full of sanctity which you have pronounced, that— when any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who have sees in neighbouring places, and he [the bishop deposed] shall announce that his case is to be examined in the city of Rome— that no other bishop shall in any wise be ordained to his see, after the appeal of him who is apparently deposed, unless the case shall have been determined in the judgment of the Roman bishop.

Canon 5

Greek

Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right— that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

Latin

Bishop Hosius said: Further decreed, that if a bishop is accused, and the bishops of that region assemble and depose him from his office, if he who has been deposed shall appeal and take refuge with the bishop of the Roman church and wishes to be given a hearing, if he think it right that the trial or examination of his case be renewed, let him be pleased to write to those bishops who are in an adjacent and neighbouring province, that they may diligently inquire into all the particulars and decide according to the word of truth. But if he who asks to have his case reheard, shall by his entreaty move the Bishop of Rome to send a presbyter a latere it shall be in the power of that bishop to do what he shall resolve and determine upon; and if he shall decide that some be sent, who shall be present and be judges with the bishops invested with his authority by whom they were appointed, it shall be as he shall choose. But if he believe that the bishops suffice to give a final decision, he shall do what he shall determine upon in his most wise judgment.

Canon 9

Greek

Bishop Hosius said: This also, I think, follows, that, if in any province whatever, bishops send petitions to one of their brothers and fellow bishops, he that is in the largest city, that is, the metropolis, should himself send his deacon and the petitions, providing him also with letters commendatory, writing also of course in succession to our brethren and fellow bishops, if any of them should be staying at that time in the places or cities in which the most pious Emperor is administering public affairs.

But if any of the bishops should have friends at the Court and should wish to make requests of them as to some proper object, let him not be forbidden to make such requests through his deacon and move these [friends] to give their kind assistance as his desire.

But those who come to Rome ought, as I said before, to deliver to our beloved brother and fellow bishop, Julius, the petitions which they have to give, in order that he may first examine them, lest some of them should be improper, and so, giving them his own advocacy and care, shall send them to the Court.

All the Bishops made answer that such was their pleasure and that the regulation was most proper.

Latin

This also seems to follow, that from whatever province bishops shall send petitions to that brother and fellow bishop of ours who has his see in the metropolis, he [the metropolitan] should dispatch his deacon with the petitions, providing him with commendatory letters of like tenour to our brethren and fellow bishops at that time resident in those regions and cities in which the fortunate and blessed Emperor is ruling the State.

If however a bishop who seeks to obtain some petition (a worthy one, that is) has friends in the palace, he is not forbidden to make his request through his deacon and to advise those who, he knows, can kindly intercede for him in his absence.

X. But let those who come to Rome, deliver, as before said, to our most holy brother and fellow bishop, the bishop of the Roman church, the petitions which they bear, that he also may examine whether they are worthy and just, and let him give diligence and care that they be forwarded to the Court.


26 posted on 11/28/2011 7:59:19 AM PST by rzman21
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson