Disgruntled Docs with Ιωάννης Βιλλιώτης Instagram 19 hours ago

Augustine on Peter as rock: confession not person

The video presents a Catholic speaker addressing the Eastern Orthodox position that Peter is not the rock of Matthew 16:18 but his confession of faith is. The speaker acknowledges Catholics agree the confession is the rock but insist Peter himself is also the rock. To challenge this, the speaker cites Augustine's Sermon 295, where Augustine writes that Peter is called the rock derivatively from Christ, just as the name Christian comes from Christ, and not in the Roman Catholic sense.

Augustine states Peter is not the rock; his confession is the rock, and Christ is the true rock. The speaker adds that Gregory the Great and Pope Honorius held the same view, arguing that the confession makes one a patriarch and without it one is nothing. The Orthodox understanding, as summarized, is that Peter is called the rock because of his confession, not because he himself is the rock. The speaker claims the Catholic position self-refutes by appealing to Augustine.

Key moments

0:00 Eastern Orthodox say Peter is not the rock but his confession of faith is the rock; Catholics agree the confession is the rock but insist Peter himself is also the rock.
0:34 Saint Augustine in sermon 295 says Peter is called the rock not in the Roman Catholic sense but derivatively from Christ, just as "Christian" comes from Christ.
1:04 Augustine states Peter is not the rock; Peter's confession is the rock, and Christ is the true rock.
1:34 Saint Gregory the Great and Pope Honorius contended this same point, saying the confession makes one a patriarch and without it one is nothing.
2:05 The Orthodox understanding is that Peter is called the rock because of his confession, not because he himself is the rock.
2:37 Augustine points this out, and the speaker claims the Catholic position self-refutes by appealing to Augustine.

10 opinions in the discussion 6 participants, 7 replies to each other The opinion with the most support I wanna clarify something. I said Peter is not THE Rock. St Augustine called Peter A rock, saying he took his name from Christ, who is the Rock. In the New Testament the word Petra doesn't mean the rock but rather a rock, because Christ said on this, and… Read the discussion

18 comments at the source Original on Instagram

Discussion · 10

Opinions are anonymous retellings of real comments from the original discussion. The same colour marks the same participant.

opinion#2899 5 likes at the source

I wanna clarify something. I said Peter is not THE Rock. St Augustine called Peter A rock, saying he took his name from Christ, who is the Rock. In the New Testament the word Petra doesn't mean the rock but rather a rock, because Christ said on this, and where Apostle Paul says no one can lay another foundation other than Jesus Christ. So Jesus Christ is the foundation, that's what I mean. Read Tractations of St Augustine 1.21.11 and his Holy Sermon 295, he explicitly says this.
opinion#2898 3 likes at the source
Yup, 1 Corinthians 10: 1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ.
- opinion#2900 1 likes at the source
  
  Exactly bro, St Augustine called Peter a rock, not the Rock, and that because of his confession. But the Romans always twist it, it's so tiring.
- opinion#2901 1 likes at the source
  
  Exactly. And furthermore, you can reference 1 Corinthians 10:4, and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. I mean, you could even take that whole chapter, and it doesn't change the context of Jesus being THE rock. I don't know how much more clear it can be, unless I'm mistaken, by all means correct me if I'm wrong. But it's like, as much as I see Catholics desperately trying to defend the power of a man, if only they put that much effort into loving their neighbor and practicing humility, that would make it more pleasant. But more often than not, since I've pursued orthodoxy, I've never come across more ridicule and judgment than from Catholics, while at the same time I often find myself defending them because they share the sacramental belief the Orthodox do.
- opinion#2902 1 likes at the source
  
  Oh, my bad, I made a few comments today. I didn't really look at what I was replying to you with. I ended up posting the same Scripture I was referring to, I got a little ahead of myself 😂
- opinion#2903 1 likes at the source
  
  It's okay bro, don't worry 😉🙌❤️
opinion#2897 1 likes at the source
Idk. To me both Peter and his confession are the Rock, that shouldn't even be disputed. The difference is just emphasis: Orthodox stress the confession, Papists stress Peter. But I don't see how Peter being the Rock in some sense equals Vatican 1 Papism. Makes no sense. The Papist Catechism itself teaches it's both Peter and his confession, and even most Baptist scholars agree Peter is the Rock, sometimes alongside his confession. Also, just citing Augustine doesn't really address what's actually being argued.
- opinion#2904 1 likes at the source
  
  You're strawmanning me 😂😂 I don't care what Baptists say. St Augustine says he's a rock, not THE Rock. Read the Holy Sermon I mentioned and stop being arrogant.
- opinion#2905
  
  For clarity, this is from the Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament: Matthew (on Matthew 16:18, pp. 406-407): many Protestants have argued that Jesus did not mean Peter was the rock. Some suggest Jesus meant himself (Lenski 1961: 626; Walvoord 1974: 123; Wilcox 1975) or Peter's confession (most credibly Caragounis 1989; cf. Calvin 1972: 2.188; McNeile 1915: 241; Toussaint 1980: 201-2) as the church's foundation. Gundry (1994: 334-35) argues 16:18 alludes to 7:24 and that Jesus builds on his own words, but the distance makes such an allusion extremely subtle at best. Others argue Peter can't be the rock since Petros is masculine and petra feminine, but grammatical precision isn't required in metaphors. Another argument is that petra means bedrock and Petros a stone, but that subtle distinction would make metaphorical speech impossible. Jesus is speaking of Peter in 16:18 as clearly as Peter speaks of Jesus in 16:16 (France 1985: 254). Jesus isn't calling himself the foundation since he's the builder. Nor is Peter's confession the foundation; he, the confessing apostle, is, and not alone but as first among equals, speaking for the apostles as a whole in Matt 16:16 (D. Turner 1991; Viviano 1990b: 660). This fits Matthew's context and coheres with texts on apostolic foundation (Eph. 2:20; Rev. 21:14). The Baptist scholar J. Broadus (1886: 355-58) recognized this 120…
- opinion#2906
  
  Brother, are you serious? Why are you replying like a Muslim? 😭 Did you even read my comment? I didn't strawman you; I didn't even articulate your argument. Also, I don't reject your evidence, I think it's a good point. But it doesn't address what's actually in contention (should the emphasis be on Peter or on the Confession?), that's my point, dude. I brought up Baptist exegesis to show how even freakin Evangelicals concede that Peter is the Rock, exegetically. That doesn't equal Vatican I Papism tho. Take a moment to process what you read before replying. I'm literally on your side.