Do Catholics Worship Mary? A response to Matt Slick

 

Words can be confusing when you want to define terms, and terms can be confusing when you want to define actions. Many concepts like “adoration, veneration, worship, reverence, homage, prayer and devotion”, though accurate to describe certain actions and ideas, lack a consistent use and meaning throughout history. When criticizing religious doctrines, such as the Catholic Marian dogmas, Protestants should use Catholic definitions and later compare such practices with those present in Scripture and history — just as they would expect us to use distinctions they do that we don’t consider biblical (e.g. sanctification vs justification, and regeneration vs baptism). This we do in order to avoid the ever changing nature of words to mud our study. An illustration of this is the word ‘worship’ itself, which in the Old English was simply used to describe any acknowledgement of worth[1], whereas nowadays has become a synonym to ‘adoration’.

 

Prominent Catholic figures like Augustine[2], Jerome[3] and Aquinas[4] explained in their writings the different senses in which Christians should honor God and creatures. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2628) summarized their position and defines what we mean by “adoring”:

Adoration is the first attitude of man acknowledging that he is a creature before his Creator. It exalts the greatness of the Lord who made us and the almighty power of the Savior who sets us free from evil. Adoration is homage of the spirit to the “King of Glory,” respectful silence in the presence of the “ever greater” God. Adoration of the thrice-holy and sovereign God of love blends with humility and gives assurance to our supplications.

 

As for the latria, hyperdulia and dulia distinction, the Church states the following:

«The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son. “The various forms of piety towards the Mother of God, which the Church has approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine according to the dispositions and understanding of the faithful, ensure that while the mother is honored, the Son through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly loved and glorified and His commandments are observed”» [5]

 

In the end, the way a Christian honors or worships (in the old-fashioned sense of the word), can be broken down as follows:

Latria & Dulia-01

Once confronted with such a clear doctrinal distinction, many have attempted to argue from Scripture that such distinction is unbiblical, though without success. Such is the case of James White, who insists the Bible condemns any type of intercessory/petitionary prayer, service and veneration in a religious context when such actions are not addressed to God. In the end, White’s argument is a modified version of what Calvin argued in his Institutes [6], but instead of focusing in the Greek, White focuses in the Hebrew text. Others [7] have addressed such type of reasoning more specifically, so I won’t take the time to go over his arguments; only those that happen to overlap with Matt Slick’s article “Do Catholics Worship Mary?”[8].

 

According to Slick, the biblical way in which the people of God pay their homage to God alone is by:

■ adoring,

■ setting up altars,

■ bowing down,

■ being devoted to,

■ entrusting one’s self to,

■ celebrating feasts to,

■ giving glory to,

■ having locations of (?),

■ looking to,

■ praying to,

■ and/or worshipping.

 

There is a fundamental flaw in this interpretation. Both Protestants and Catholics will agree that these actions in and of themselves are not sins. They only become sinful if the recipient of some of these actions is someone other than God. Some actions are owed to God alone, like adoring or setting up sacrificial altars; while others, like bowing down, can be performed towards human beings without any guilt. Let’s analyze some of these controversial actions:

 

Adoring

Not surprisingly, in Slick’s article there was only an image to argue that Catholics adore Mary. Never in the history of the Church has the Magisterium officially taught or produced a document inviting Catholics to adore Mary in the same way we adore our almighty God. The challenge to produce such evidence has been laid out many times, and Protestant apologists have continuously neglected such proof. Old pious prayers with archaic lofty and exalted language won’t suffice as evidence.

 

Altars

The accusation that Catholics built altars to worship Mary is a common misunderstanding of ancient architecture. Due to their scale, Romanesque and Gothic layouts in churches would allow certain subdivision of interior spaces, also known as chapels, to allow the building to host more than one activity at a given time — even different masses at a time. In big churches like basilicas and cathedrals, these chapels, yet part of the larger apse, would be often be considered separate from the larger main layout. Chapels would often be dedicated to certain persons of the Trinity, saints, angels or even patrons; and some of them would be equipped with altars to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist in a smaller scale, with a smaller crowd. The sacrifices taking place in these secondary altars were never offered to the saint or angel to whom the chapel was dedicated, for that matter, the offers were not directed towards the surrounding images or statues. As explained, these spatial arrangements allowed for the personal devotions to these heroes of the faith to be more intimate, and to manage the crowds when the need arises.

 

Altar sacrifices should indeed be offered to God and to God alone. Bishop Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion denounces the heresy of the Collyridians, who pretended to offer quasi-Eucharistic sacrifices to the Virgin Mary. The group was immediately condemned and classified as a heresy by the Early Church. This only reaffirms the ecclesiastic commitment to offer the Holy Virgin proper veneration, and it confirms the always-present understanding that the Eucharist was the ultimate pleasing-to-God memorial sacrifice. It is worth to note Epiphanius was one of the few Church Fathers who was somewhat scandalized to some early Christian practices that involved the decoration of churches with images and statues of the saints. Again, this only proves it was already common by the time he wrote about this issue. 

 

Entrusting/Praying

One of the earliest Christian prayers, the Sub tuum praesidium (c. 300 AD), reads as follows: “We fly to thy patronage, O holy Mother of God; despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin. Amen.” Entrusting ourselves to the care of angels and saints, and entrusting them with our petitions through the power of the Holy Spirit, so that they intercede before the Father, is not unbiblical. The book of Revelation portrays angels and saints in Heaven, receiving the prayers of the holy ones here on Earth, and presenting them to the Father (Rev 5:8, 8:3-4*).

 

Additionally, the Catechism teaches:

The Holy Spirit who teaches the Church and recalls to her all that Jesus said also instructs her in the life of prayer, inspiring new expressions of the same basic forms of prayer: blessing, petition, intercession, thanksgiving, and praise. [10]

 

The petitions in which we mention Mary’s role are primarily prayers of intercession…:

Since Abraham, intercession – asking on behalf of another has been characteristic of a heart attuned to God’s mercy. In the age of the Church, Christian intercession participates in Christ’s, as an expression of the communion of saints. In intercession, he who prays looks “not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others,” even to the point of praying for those who do him harm.

The first Christian communities lived this form of fellowship intensely. Thus the Apostle Paul gives them a share in his ministry of preaching the Gospel but also intercedes for them. The intercession of Christians recognizes no boundaries: “for all men, for kings and all who are in high positions,” for persecutors, for the salvation of those who reject the Gospel. [11]

 

… and prayers of petition:

Christian petition is centered on the desire and search for the Kingdom to come, in keeping with the teaching of Christ. There is a hierarchy in these petitions: we pray first for the Kingdom, then for what is necessary to welcome it and cooperate with its coming. This collaboration with the mission of Christ and the Holy Spirit, which is now that of the Church, is the object of the prayer of the apostolic community. It is the prayer of Paul, the apostle par excellence, which reveals to us how the divine solicitude for all the churches ought to inspire Christian prayer. By prayer every baptized person works for the coming of the Kingdom. [12]

 

Though the latter type of prayer is not as common when it comes to the figure of Mary, it is still valid to invoke her name in such manner. E.g. “Father in Heaven, in your mercy, grant me the virtues you entrusted to your servant Mary; so that with your graces I may be equipped to …”. Mary, ultimately aligns the prayer of Christians and God’s servants to “do whatever He tells you” (Jn 2:5). Let us remember James’ words (5:16): “the prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective”; how much more effective will the intercession of the Mother of God be?

 

Feasts

As preamble, Romans 14:5-6 invites Christians to avoid passing judgment over those converts who observe Jewish feasts. The context of the passage is denouncing the criticism that people whose faith is stronger have towards those Jewish converts whose faith is weaker. Paul argues that the important thing is to live for the Lord, and that’s what Catholics are called to and constantly reminded of.

 

Exodus 32:5 is quoted as somehow prohibiting all types of feasts. The reality is that the Bible does not forbid the celebration of non-biblical feasts. The Jews did not take it that way either. Until this day, most of them have observed the Feast of the Dedication, which Slick would probably consider unbiblical, sourced in the victory of the troops of Judas Maccabeus over the Macedonian rulers and the purification of the new temple. Some people even argue that Jesus Himself used this feast to come into the world as the true new temple. Similarly, other Jewish feasts celebrate God’s work with His people, which is the whole point of having feasts in the Church as well. When the Church celebrates someone’s feast, it primarily celebrates God’s work on his loyal servant(s). Mary is the most excellent creature that ever existed, so naturally the Church celebrates her with special consideration.

 

Glory

Here is where the Reformed idea of monergism becomes more apparent. We do not take away glory from God when the Body of Christ is exalted by God’s own power. The strange view that members of the Body of Christ should not have any sort of glory has crept into the Church; perhaps not acknowledging that God works in us by endowing us with His own glory. The Father conferred glory to His incarnate Son, so He may confer it to us (John 17:22). He raises us up to have us seated in Heavenly places (Ephesians 2:6), where we will judge angels (1 Corinthians 6:3) and the twelve tribes of Israel (Matthew 19:28, Luke 22:30), and reign with Him if we endure (2 Timothy 2:12) and suffer in his name (Romans 8:17). All this, so that by following His Gospel, we may gain His glory (2 Thessalonians 2:14).

 

Our God is not a jealous one in this sense, He is a God that shares in His glory, by making us participants in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4). Therefore, we do not err when we promote the God-given glory of Mary, for this is not of her own doing; but conferred by the Lord Himself. There is a difference between acknowledging the glory of a person who has lived a godly life, and conferring a glory we don’t have via a power we don’t have, since the latter is impossible.

 

Bowing down

I recall two common instances in the Bible in which creatures have been rebuked by kneeling/bowing down to other creatures. In Acts 10:25-26, Cornelius, having little knowledge of the Christian faith, is warned by Peter not to prostrate himself before him. In Revelation 19:10, and Revelation 22:9, John can’t resist the temptation to adore the angels of God. As a sidenote, in Tobit 12:16, we have no indication that angels are displeased when humans fall to the ground before them out of fear without the intention to worship; in fact they bring consolation to help overcome that fear. We see then; bowing down, prostrating, kneeling or falling to the ground, is only considered sinful when our intention is to worship/adore the creature or idol in front of us.

 

We have a better and more accurate biblical analogy we should study when it comes the Blessed Mother. In 1 Kings 2, we have the Gebirah, the “Great Lady” (a typos of Mary), approaching King Solomon (a typos of Jesus). As you would imagine, this queen lady is Bathsheba, the mother of the king. In verse 19, she enters where the king is seated to intercede for Adonijah, and the king Solomon “stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne”. Having bowed before King David in chapter 1:31, she now receives this level of reverence from her own son. Make no mistake, Mary is indeed the cosmical Gebirah (Rev 12:1), and as the great intercessor, we should treat her with the same level of respect.

 

In Joshua 7:6, Joshua fell face-down before the Ark of God. Did the Israelites adore the Ark? No, but they paid utter reverence to it because it signified God’s presence. Otherwise the Ark would have faced the same fate as the Nehushtan did. In the same fashion, Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant. She contained the Word of God in flesh, as the Ark contained the Word of God in stone; she contained the Living Bread from Heaven, as the Ark contained the heavenly Mana; and she contained the true High Priest, as the Ark contained Aaron’s rod, symbol of the priesthood. Even fake idols fell down in prostration with their heads crushed before the Ark (1 Samuel 5:4), just as Mary’s seed is promised to crush the head of the serpent and her offspring in Genesis 3:15.

 

Worshipping?

All things considered, we have learned that worship in the Christian faith and Catholic theology encompasses different levels of respect; and though contemporary linguistic considerations would favor terms like veneration instead, there is no theological error in saying worshiping someone, in the traditional sense of the word, is a sinful practice. When ‘adoring’ is used as a synonym of ‘worship’, and such practice is oriented towards a creature, idol or interest, it is always sinful as it does fall into the category of idolatry.

pieta by vgm8383
Michelangelo’s La Pietà – Photography by vgm8383 (Flickr user)

The Reformers were tough critics of this distinction of latria and dulia, yet they had to say the following about Mary:

 

Luther

“The veneration of Mary is inscribed in the very depths of the human heart.”[13]

 

In his last Sermon at Wittenberg, in January 1546 he preached:

“Is Christ only to be adored? Or is the holy Mother of God rather not to be honoured? This is the woman who crushed the Serpent’s head. Hear us. For your Son denies you nothing.”[14]

 

In his 1531 sermon at Christmas, while strongly arguing the Catholic devotion to Mary detracted from Christ, Luther wrote:

“[…] what are all the maids, servants, masters, mistresses, princes, kings, and monarchs on earth compared with the Virgin Mary, who was born of royal lineage, and withal became the mother of God, the noblest woman on earth? After Christ, she is the most precious jewel in all Christendom. And this noblest woman on earth is to serve me and us all by bearing this child and giving him to be our own! […] True it is, she is worthy of praise and can never be praised and extolled enough. For this honor is so great and wonderful, to be chosen before all women on earth to become the mother of this child.”[15]

 

Zwingli wrote:

“I esteem immensely the Mother of God, the ever chaste, immaculate Virgin Mary”[16].

 

He later goes on to say: “The more the honor and love of Christ increases among men, so much the esteem and honor given to Mary should grow”[17].

 

Calvin — from whom a famous Reformed Protestant said: “Among all those who have been born of women, there has not risen a greater than John Calvin” [18] — coincidently said:

“It cannot even be denied that God conferred the highest honor on Mary, by choosing and appointing her to be the mother of his Son.”[19]

 

He again wrote: “To this day we cannot enjoy the blessing brought to us in Christ without thinking at the same time of that which God gave as adornment and honour to Mary, in willing her to be the mother of his only-begotten Son.”[20]

This same honor we Catholics promote and proclaim, this is the honor we Catholics celebrate; for “all generations shall call her blessed” (Luke 1:48).

 


* Tobit 12:12 supports the role of angels and archangels as the ones who present the prayers to God.


[1] Merriam Webster Dictionary (online).

[2] The City of God, Book X.

[3] Letter 109, Paragraph 1.

[4] Summa Theologica, 2nd II, Q 103, Arts 3 & 4.

[5] Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, VII, 66.

[6] Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1:12:2.

[7] https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2017/12/29/debunking-james-white-on-the-latria-and-dulia-distinction/

[8] https://carm.org/catholic/do-catholics-worship-mary?fbclid=IwAR1AYmo0ZBVLFOZU3cK4JokDeP4yAN6IihTdczXrv4VHMSnH0ezGM6Fr9nI

[9] The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III. De Fide. Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies (Second, revised ed.). 79. 2012-12-03 – via Brill.

[10] Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC 2644).

[11] Ibid. 2635, 2636.

[12] Ibid. 2632.

[13] Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works (Translation by William J. Cole) 10, p. 268.

[14] Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther’s Works

[15] Martin Luther, Sermon at Christmas (1531), Luther’s Complete Sermons Vol. 5 Ed. by George Roerer (14-15).

[16] E. Stakemeier, De Mariologia et Oecumenismo, K. Balic, ed., (Rome, 1962), 456.

[17] Ulrich Zwingli, Zwingli Opera, Corpus Reformatorum, Volume 1, 427-428.

[18] C. H. Spurgeon, Autobiography, Vol. II: The Full Harvest

[19] John Calvin, Calvini Opera [Braunschweig-Berlin, 1863-1900], Volume 45, 348.” Page 348

[20] John Calvin, A Harmony of Matthew, Mark and Luke (St. Andrew’s Press, Edinburgh, 1972), p.32.

Kecharitomene: How Protestants favored ‘highly-favored’.

 

Translations are what they are… translations. As many other Catholic theologians would point out, the word ‘kecharitomene’ has a more robust and emphatic meaning when understood in the Greek. In this article, I would like to shine light on the issue of why most non-Catholics have deviated from the use of “full of grace” when translating kecharitomene in Luke 1:28. Here’s a brief exposition of the way the Protestant textual interpretation shifted when it comes to the English readings.

mary-kecharitomene

The earliest lucan reading in Greek is found as this:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν· χαῖρε, κεχαριτωμένη, ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ” (Nestle Aland)

 

At the time, the Textus Receptus, crucial to our understanding of several developments, read like this, very similar to the original Greek:

καὶ εἰσελθὼν ὁ ἄγγελος πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπεν Χαῖρε κεχαριτωμένη ὁ κύριος μετὰ σοῦ εὐλογημένη σὺ ἐν γυναιξίν” (Textus Receptus)

 

Χαῖρε / Chaire – undoubtedly is both a praise and greeting  with reverence at the same time; not one or the other. I hope we can agree on this one. (See Mt 26:49, 27:29, Mk 15:18 & Jn 19:3)

 

The first English translations by Wycliffe (1380 & 1395) read this way:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘪𝘥𝘦, 𝙃𝙚𝙞𝙡, 𝙛𝙪𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚; 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦; 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘺𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

The Tyndale Bible (1534) read like this:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘺𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘥𝘦: 𝙃𝙖𝙮𝙡𝙚 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝘺𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘦: 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

Now, the Geneva Bible in 1557, changed the meaning of kecharitomene but retained the royal greeting of Chaire. The extraneous use of “beloved” instead of “full of grace” is probably attributed to the earlier 1568 Bishop’s Bible:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘸𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝙃𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙚𝙙: 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦: 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

From this point on, there has been plenty of freedom in the non-Catholic interpretations of the text. Look at the 1611 KJB’s unprecedented rendition:

“𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘷𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝙃𝙖𝙞𝙡𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙪𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦: 𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯.”

 

Moreover, subsequent English translations followed such rendition, and the posterior King James versions later revised themselves to read similarly to what we have today in our texts:

𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘭 𝘤𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, “𝙍𝙚𝙟𝙤𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙝𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙡𝙮 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘺𝘰𝘶; 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘯!” (KJV 2016)

 

The first recorded instance of a Bible removing the royal greeting Chaire is the Etheridge translation (1849): “𝙋𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙚, 𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙜𝙧𝙖𝙘𝙚”, followed by the Emphasised Rotherham version (1902): “𝙅𝙤𝙮 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙚, 𝙛𝙖𝙫𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣𝙚”. It’s proven, I think, these slight but significant alterations to the interpretation are not only modern, but sourced in a doctrinal bias. Ever since the KJV, non-Catholic translations like the NIV, NASB, NRSV have diminished the title-description of kecharitomene, and avoided the rightful use of ‘Hail’ in the archangel’s salutation.

 

Just as “Hail” has a meaning of reverence that the words “greetings” or “rejoice” cannot fully express; kecharitomene has a significance in the Greek, which expressions like “full of grace”, much less “highly favored”, cannot fully capture.

“Why won’t the Vatican sell all its treasures and give them to the poor?”

The Bible already answered this question:

𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘔𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘬 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦; 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴’ 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘱𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘪𝘳. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦.

𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝙅𝙪𝙙𝙖𝙨 𝙄𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙧𝙞𝙤𝙩, 𝙬𝙝𝙤 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙚𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙮 𝙝𝙞𝙢, 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥, “𝘞𝘩𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴𝘯’𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳? 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘺𝘦𝘢𝘳’𝘴 𝘸𝘢𝘨𝘦𝘴. 𝘏𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘧; 𝘢𝘴 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘨, 𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘱 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵.

“𝘓𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦,” 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘥. “𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘧𝘶𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘺 𝘣𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘭. 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘮𝘦.”

 

(John 12:3-8)

 

Tell me brother, would you betray Jesus and His Church too?

Peter, His Faith, or Christ as the Rock? What St. Augustine Actually Taught

Rock Cliff Boat Costa Boats Sea Church Castle

 

There are actually plenty of quotes from Augustine with interpretations of Matthew 16:18 which at first glance favors the retractors of Petrine Primacy. Orthodox and Protestants often cite these passages to show the Early Church Fathers never taught Peter was the Rock on which the Church was founded.

 

𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘪𝘨𝘶𝘳𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘦𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢), 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢) 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦. 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬; 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. ‘𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦,’ 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘤𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘥, 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩;’ 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, ‘𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩.’ 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘔𝘺𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘦. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘴; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘈𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘐𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥? 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘦 𝘣𝘢𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘻𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭?’ 𝘈𝘯𝘥, 𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭, 𝘴𝘰 𝘯𝘦𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵: 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳.Translated by R.G. MacMullen. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. 6. Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1888.)

 

𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘦𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘞𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯? ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘲𝘶𝘦𝘳. — John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine , © 1993 New City Press, Sermons, Vol III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327

 

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). — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 236A.3, p. 48.

 

𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢 (𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬) 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢; 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘐 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩,’ 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘖𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘏𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢) 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘯𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯 𝘭𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘭𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘢𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘴 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 (𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘳𝘢); 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. — Augustine Tractate CXXIV; Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: First Series, Volume VII Tractate CXXIV

 

𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮, ‘𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.’ 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘥, ‘𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘑𝘰𝘯𝘢, 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). 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘛𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯, 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨; 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘢𝘥𝘯𝘵 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, p. 95

 

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)…𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶: 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳; 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘐 𝘮𝘦𝘢𝘯, 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘺 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰𝘦𝘴𝘯𝘵 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. — John Rotelle, O.S.A. Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 270.2, p. 289  

 

𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥, 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘪𝘵 (𝘔𝘵. 16:18). 𝘕𝘰𝘸 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 (1 𝘊𝘰𝘳. 10:4). 𝘞𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘤𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶? 𝘏𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴, 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘴, 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘧𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘦𝘳. — John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1995), Sermons, Volume III/10,Sermon 358.5, p. 193

 

𝘓𝘦𝘵 𝘶𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭: ‘𝘜𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘔𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩.’ 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘚𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘏𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘩 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘢 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬? 𝘏𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘶𝘭 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨: ‘𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘙𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.’ 𝘖𝘯 𝘏𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯. — Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VIII, Saint Augustin, Exposition on the Book of Psalms, Psalm LXI.3, p. 249.

 

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 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘥𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.’ 𝘍𝘰𝘳, ‘𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘉𝘶𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦 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. — The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1:.

 

Here I address the quotations of St. Augustine’s Sermons and Retractions regarding the Petrine theory. Augustine’s stances on the issue are better summarized in his own statement we just read in his ‘Retractationes’, which are not actual retractions or recantations as we understand them in the common English; but reconsiderations, re-examinations or revisions as many Latin scholars have pointed out.

 

As he himself described, Augustine originally maintained the Petrine theory, situating Peter as the Rock in Matthew 16:18. Later, he preached such rock was Peter’s confession or statement of faith. Finally, he also adopted the simpler view Christ is Himself the rock, probably as a result of his constant reference to the Pauline understanding of Christ as the rock from which believers drink and his work on the Psalms.

 

So here we have St. Augustine upholding three different perspectives on the passage — how does He (and therefore ‘we’) reconcile them? To answer this, we need to first have in consideration two things regarding Catholic theology and the historical context in which these words were written:

 

  1. No Christian in communion with the Catholic Church ever argued the See of Peter had no supreme authority over the universal church. We do find statements by Tertullian who first acknowledged the office of Peter in ‘Against Heresies’ to have such authority, but once he became a heretic, he recanted his position in ‘On Modesty’.
  2. Because of the latter, neither the doctrine of Papal Infallibility needed to be rigorously defined nor the non-Petrine interpretation of the rock condemned. If Augustine, not being considered infallible, had maintained that the Church at large (and not Peter alone) received the power of the keys after this doctrine was defined, he would have been anathematized by the Council. But in his writings, he never denies or detaches this power from the figure of St. Peter, he only leaves the door open for the minister in the Church to opt for a more pastoral interpretation or a more doctrinal one.

 

It is only as a result of the many controversies questioning the authority of the Bishop of Rome that the Church infallibly defined the verses in question as follow: 𝘔𝘢𝘵𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘸 16:16-19 (“𝘛𝘩𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩“) 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘑𝘰𝘩𝘯 21:15-17 (“𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘴 . . . 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱“) 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘭 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺. — Questions People Ask About the Catholic Church by Fr. Leslie Rumble (Kensington, Australia: Chevalier, 1972), pp. 176-177.

 

In Vatican I, Session 4, Chapter 1 we find the following:

  1. 𝘞𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵, 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘭 𝘦𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦, 𝘢 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥.
  2. 𝘐𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦, 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘢𝘭𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘥𝘺 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘊𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘢𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘬𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘴:
  3. 𝘉𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘉𝘢𝘳𝘑𝘰𝘯𝘢. 𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘮𝘺 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘐 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘵. 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.
  4. 𝘈𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘶𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦 𝘗𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘳𝘶𝘭𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘭𝘥, 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨:
  5. 𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘮𝘣𝘴, 𝘧𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱..
  6. 𝘛𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘢𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘚𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘱𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘵 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘺, 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘢 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.
  7. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘪𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯 𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘧, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘮𝘪𝘵𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳.
  8. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙚, 𝙞𝙛 𝙖𝙣𝙮𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙮𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙋𝙚𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙤𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙮 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙘𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙤𝙨𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙫𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙚 𝘾𝙝𝙪𝙧𝙘𝙝 𝙢𝙞𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙩; 𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖 𝙥𝙧𝙞𝙢𝙖𝙘𝙮 𝙤𝙛 𝙝𝙤𝙣𝙤𝙧 𝙤𝙣𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙧𝙪𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙥𝙧𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙧 𝙟𝙪𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙙𝙞𝙘𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙚 𝙙𝙞𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙩𝙡𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙞𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙡𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝙅𝙚𝙨𝙪𝙨 𝘾𝙝𝙧𝙞𝙨𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢𝙨𝙚𝙡𝙛: 𝙡𝙚𝙩 𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙗𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢𝙖.

 

Having this in mind, the Catechism teaches four things, reconciling the issue for us in the process:

  1. 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. (CCC 424)
  2. 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘴𝘵 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘛𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦; 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮. 𝘛𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘢 𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳, 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘢𝘥 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘚𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘎𝘰𝘥.” 𝘖𝘶𝘳 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘭𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘩𝘪𝘮: “𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘏𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘪𝘵.” 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘚𝘵𝘰𝘯𝘦“, 𝘵𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩, 𝘣𝘶𝘪𝘭𝘵 𝘰𝘯 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘰𝘧 𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘥𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘩. 𝘉𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘏𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘪𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘬𝘦𝘦𝘱 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘭𝘢𝘱𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘨𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘪𝘵. (CCC 552)
  3. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳: “𝘐 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘯 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘩 𝘴𝘩𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘨𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘎𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘚𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥, 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘳𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘙𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯: “𝘍𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘮𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘦𝘱.” 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘣𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘷𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘴, 𝘵𝘰 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘳𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮. (CCC 553)
  4. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘚𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚, 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘩𝘦 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘬𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩. 𝘏𝘦 𝘨𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘦𝘺𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘩𝘪𝘮 𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘭𝘰𝘤𝘬. “𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘣𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥.” 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘗𝘦𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘩𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘩𝘴 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘺 𝘧𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘶𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘣𝘪𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘱𝘴 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘤𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘗𝘰𝘱𝘦 (CCC 881).

The first and second point clearly collect most, if not all of the historic Catholic interpretations attributed to this passage. We see the Catechism, just like Augustine, teaches that Peter the man, his confession of faith and Christ Himself are all alluded as the foundational rocks. The Catechism later goes on verse by verse to identify the source of doctrinal developments.

 

Based on the third point, I must say non-Catholics who often attack papal supremacy by claiming Peter is not the rock in Mt 16:18 are quite missing the point. It is the handing of the keys alluded in the verse which alone confers Peter supreme authority over the rest of the Church, which is better understood in the light of Isaiah 22:22.

 

In point number 4, when the Catechism goes on to say “The Lord made Simon alone”, ‘alone’ is used in the individual sense, in comparison to the rest of the Apostles and the episcopal college. Thus, it does not exclude the understanding that the rock can be Simon’s confession of faith and Christ himself.

 

We conclude then, when it comes to putting to the test the Petrine theory of authority, the non-Catholic should challenge the power of the keys and the commission of Christ to feed His sheep, not the identity of the rock.

 

Acknowledging this, we also see in Catholic teaching there is room for more than one interpretation since they all approach the issue from different angles. We can say the rock in formal sense refers to Peter himself, just as the woman clothed with the sun refers to Mary. The rock in the material sense refers to a Christ-centered faith, since that is what Peter’s mission is fueled by. The rock in the efficient sense refers to Christ Himself, the fountainhead of grace through which the Holy Spirit edifies us in Him. Such understanding now makes much more sense thanks to the tireless work of Fathers like St. Augustine, who very often is juxtaposed against Catholic theology, but happened to be the one of the Church’s most loyal and revered servants.

God: Omnisciency VS Free Will?

Actually there is no real philosophical contradiction between an omniscient god and free will. There is only an apparent moral one, primarily because of the omnibenevolence factor usually attributed to god as well and bent at will by atheists. In fact, Christians don’t really have a problem reconciling an omniscient god with human free will, it’s only Reformed theology (Calvinists) who deny it’s a possibility. But in general, the dilemma has more to do with the doctrine of predestination, providence and free will, hence the many different theories like compatibilism, thomism and molinism.

But in and of itself, an omniscient god could have created autonomous beings, morally responsible of their own decisions. Two points to this: A) knowing the outcome of circumstances not make you responsible of such future unless you cause it. B) Knowing something does not represent anything real in the known object (Hegel would differ though).

The contradiction arises because there is a misconception of god, it often sounds like this: “Why would an all-good God allow a person to hurt another person? He either decreed it to happen or he either just sat and watch”. Christians would immediately point out that an omniscient or an omnibenevolent god ≠ all-controlling god.

And sure, apparent contradictory things can happen in the natural realm without necessarily dismissing their existence, e.g. an ex nihilo universe whose origin violated its own laws. You do not always need to redefine the attributes of something, e.g: god is omniscient, the universe came from nothing… Sometimes you can go as far as to develop the concepts themselves (‘omnisciency,’ ‘nothing’, etc.) by adding exclusionary clauses if it’s a better way to reconcile these ideas, they are not set in stone.

For more information, William Lane Craig expands on the role of God’s foreknowledge and human freedom a little bit more:

Questions About the Eucharist

Someone objected to the Catholic teaching on the Real Presence by arguing the Eucharist was never adored in the Early Church, thus the substances of bread and wine were never revered. This person also claimed there are no records of Eucharistic miracles nor allusions to any concept associated to transubstantiation. Below is a breakdown of my attempt to address each issue.

 

𝗔𝗱𝗼𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗘𝘂𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗿𝗶𝘀𝘁.

I will start with the quotations from St. Augustine.

“What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that THE BREAD IS THE BODY OF CHRIST AND THE CHALICE [WINE] THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.” (Sermons 272)

“FOR CHRIST WAS CARRIED IN HIS OWN HANDS, WHEN, REFERRING TO HIS OWN BODY, HE SAID: ‘THIS IS MY BODY.’ FOR HE CARRIED THAT BODY IN HIS HANDS.” (Psalms 33:1:10)

“He walked here in the same flesh, AND GAVE US THE SAME FLESH TO BE EATEN UNTO SALVATION. BUT NO ONE EATS THAT FLESH 𝙐𝙉𝙇𝙀𝙎𝙎 𝙃𝙀 𝙁𝙄𝙍𝙎𝙏𝙎 𝘼𝘿𝙊𝙍𝙀𝙎 𝙄𝙏; and thus it is discovered how such a footstool of the Lord’s feet is adored; AND NOT ONLY DO WE NOT SIN BY ADORING, WE DO SIN BY NOT ADORING.” (Enarr. Psalm 98:9)

St. Basil (330-379 AD) would divide the Eucharist in three parts: one to be consumed by him, one for his monks and a third one to be placed in a golden dove suspended above the altar to be adored.

By the 11th century, not the 13th, Eucharistic Adoration in the modern form was already widespread.

ephesus_ichthyscrop

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀.

St Ephraim (306-373 AD) writes in his Homilies 4:4, 4:6.

“Do not now regard as bread that which I have given you; but take, eat this Bread [of life], and 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙘𝙖𝙩𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙧𝙪𝙢𝙗𝙨; for what I have called My Body, that it is indeed. One particle from its crumbs is able to sanctify thousands and thousands, and is sufficient to afford life to those who eat of it.”

Origen (185-254 AD) in his 13th Homily on Exodus writes:

“I wish to admonish you with examples from your religious practices. You who are accustomed to take part in the divine mysteries know, when you receive the body of the Lord, how you protect it with all caution and veneration 𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙩 𝙖𝙣𝙮 𝙨𝙢𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙧𝙩 𝙛𝙖𝙡𝙡 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙞𝙩, lest anything of the consecrated gift be lost. For you believe, and correctly, that you are answerable if anything falls from there by neglect. But if you are so careful to preserve his body, and rightly so, how do you think that there is less guilt to have neglected God’s word than to have neglected his body?”

 

𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆 𝗺𝗶𝗿𝗮𝗰𝗹𝗲𝘀.

Though the first officially recognized eucharistic miracle took place in the 8th century in Lanciano, there are early testimonies of other extraordinary events. Take the ‘Sayings of the Desert Fathers’:

[…] “The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, “Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.” The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, “Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.” God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙮𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙥𝙡𝙖𝙘𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙤𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙨 𝙞𝙩 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚 𝙘𝙝𝙞𝙡𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙧𝙚𝙚 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child’s blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces. 𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙙𝙧𝙚𝙬 𝙣𝙚𝙖𝙧 𝙩𝙤 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙨𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙚𝙙 𝙚𝙡𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙢𝙖𝙣 𝙖𝙡𝙤𝙣𝙚 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙚𝙞𝙫𝙚𝙙 𝙖 𝙢𝙤𝙧𝙨𝙚𝙡 𝙤𝙛 𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙙𝙮 𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙝. 𝙎𝙚𝙚𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙛𝙧𝙖𝙞𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙪𝙩, “𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙, 𝙄 𝙗𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙚𝙫𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙 𝙞𝙨 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙝 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙘𝙝𝙖𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙗𝙡𝙤𝙤𝙙.” 𝙄𝙢𝙢𝙚𝙙𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙡𝙮 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙛𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙝, 𝙬𝙝𝙞𝙘𝙝 𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙚𝙡𝙙 𝙞𝙣 𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙙, 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙢𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙, 𝙖𝙘𝙘𝙤𝙧𝙙𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙢𝙮𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙮 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙞𝙩, 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙣𝙠𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙂𝙤𝙙.  Then the old men said to him, “God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.” […]

I would argue though, that the earliest Eucharistic miracles happened in the NT. Take the Luke’s Road to Emmaus:

“𝙒𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙝𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙖𝙩 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙖𝙗𝙡𝙚 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢, 𝙝𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤𝙠 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙, 𝙗𝙡𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙗𝙧𝙤𝙠𝙚 𝙞𝙩, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙜𝙖𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢. 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙚𝙮𝙚𝙨 𝙬𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙤𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙧𝙚𝙘𝙤𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙯𝙚𝙙 𝙝𝙞𝙢; 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙚 𝙫𝙖𝙣𝙞𝙨𝙝𝙚𝙙 𝙛𝙧𝙤𝙢 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙞𝙧 𝙨𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩. They said to each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he was talking to us on the road, while he was opening the scriptures to us?” That same hour they got up and returned to Jerusalem; and they found the eleven and their companions gathered together. They were saying, “The Lord has risen indeed, and he has appeared to Simon!” 𝙏𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙮 𝙩𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙝𝙖𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙤𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙧𝙤𝙖𝙙, 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙝𝙚 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙚𝙣 𝙢𝙖𝙙𝙚 𝙠𝙣𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙩𝙤 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙢 𝙞𝙣 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙗𝙧𝙚𝙖𝙙.” (Lk 24:30-35)

If you pay close attention, the apparitions of Jesus often take place in the Lord’s Day, when the disciples get together to break the bread.

 

𝗢𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝗳 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘂𝗯𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.

Justin Martyr (100-165 AD) is the clearest:

For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by 𝙩𝙧𝙖𝙣𝙨𝙢𝙪𝙩𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣 are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.” (First Apology, 66)

St Irenaeus (140-202 AD):

“When, therefore, the mixed cup and the baked bread receives the Word of God and BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, THE BODY OF CHRIST, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, WHICH IS ETERNAL LIFE — flesh which is nourished BY THE BODY AND BLOOD OF THE LORD…receiving the Word of God, BECOMES THE EUCHARIST, WHICH IS THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST…” (Against Heresies 5:2:2-3).

Origen again writes:

“We give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread presented to us; and this bread BECOMES BY PRAYER A SACRED BODY, which sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.” (Against Celsus 8:33)

The Marshner Challenge to Irresistible Grace

“𝘕𝘰 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘩𝘢𝘴 𝘰𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘩 𝘢𝘴 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘯; 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘴 𝘧𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘩𝘧𝘶𝘭, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭𝘰𝘸 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘦𝘺𝘰𝘯𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦, 𝘣𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘦𝘴𝘤𝘢𝘱𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰, 𝘴𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘵.” (1 𝘊𝘰𝘳 10:13)

The doctrine of irresistible grace claims under ‘sola gratia’, special grace is salvific and as such it cannot be resisted by the creature. We all agree God’s mean to escape sin or the corruption of the world is through the grace that makes us participant in his divine nature (2 Peter 1:4).

The premises of the promise:

Is God’s promise to provide a ‘way of escape’ in 1 Cor 10:13 for the Elect or for the rest of the world as well?

𝗔) If it is for everyone, then grace is ‘wasted’ by those who resisted it by falling in sin and remain damned.

𝗕) If it is for the Elect, as some may claim then it follows:

𝗕𝟭) The elect always succeed in overcoming the temptation and therefore have never sinned, and any member who presumes to be of the Elect and sins was never chosen in the first place. But then the Apostle John is lying when he writes “𝘐𝘧 𝘸𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘯𝘰 𝘴𝘪𝘯, 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘴” (1 Jn 1:8).

𝗕𝟮) The Elect have sometimes sinned and therefore rejected God’s grace and ‘way of escape’, making it resistible.

For the Reformed view, the only way out is to claim God has allotted in his decree 𝘀𝗼𝗺𝗲 forms of grace which can be temporarily 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗱.

○ Let’s assume the Reformed say it is salvific grace. Even if one member of the elect yields to temptation by resisting God’s way of escape, it can no longer be considered saving/special grace.

○ Now, let’s say we are talking about common grace, since this particular grace can be resisted. In this case, premise (𝗔) follows and the Reformed would have to argue against 2 Peter 1:3-4, which identifies God’s promises to escape from sin and a participation in his divine nature only available to the Elect through the knowledge of Christ.

Even if you disconnect the ideas in 2 Peter from 1 Corinthians (and Hebrews in this case) the Reformed still need to provide an account for the nature of such grace.

The Calvinist KJVOnlyst Dilemma

2 Peter 2:1 and Jude 1:4 use the Greek term ‘despotēn’ (Δεσπότην). Both passages are known to be parallel since scholars and theologians agree there is a common thread among their wording, namely for the purpose of denouncing false Gnostic prophets in the Church.

St. Jude tells us Jesus Christ is both ‘despotēn’/𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳 (Δεσπότην) 𝗮𝗻𝗱 ‘Kyrion’/𝘓𝘰𝘳𝘥 (Κύριον). Whereas the Second Epistle of St. Peter only mentions the former title of 𝘮𝘢𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘳.

The Greek Textus Receptus (TR) equally used the term ‘despotēn’ in both passages. So the English would naturally read:

2 Peter 2:1—”𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘩𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘢𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘺𝘰𝘶, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘵𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘦𝘴, 𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙈𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮, 𝘣𝘳𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘱𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮𝘴𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘴 𝘴𝘸𝘪𝘧𝘵 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯.” [ESV]

Jude 1:4—”𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘤𝘦𝘥 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘰𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘶𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝙈𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙, 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.” [ESV]

However, in 2 Peter 2:1 the King James Bible translates the word ‘Master/Owner’ (‘despotēn’) as ‘Lord’ (Kyrion):

“𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘮 […]”

This mistake in translation was not originated in the KJV, but it has been carried out by its predecessors the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, Matthew’s, Coverdale’s, Tyndale’s and Wycliffe’s… and so on. So the KJV is just passively transmitting (once more) an old mistake corrected in the modern translations.

However, the error is more evident in the case of Jude 1:4, where the KJV goes all over the place with the phrasing:

“𝘍𝘰𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘮𝘦𝘯 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘪𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦𝘴, 𝘸𝘩𝘰 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘮𝘯𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘶𝘯𝘨𝘰𝘥𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝘎𝘰𝘥, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.”

Instead of ‘Master’, the KJB and its predecessors arbitrarily insert ‘Lord God’ (Kyrion Theos) a variant never found in any ancient manuscript. Now, before we move on it is important to say the TR and the Majority and Byzantine-type Texts do contain a variant which reads like this:

“παρεισεδυσαν γαρ τινες ανθρωποι οι παλαι προγεγραμμενοι εις τουτο το κριμα ασεβεις την του θεου (God) ημων χαριν μετατιθεντες εις ασελγειαν και τον μονον δεσποτην (Master) θεον (God) και κυριον (Lord) ημων ιησουν χριστον αρνουμενοι”

So naturally, if the KJB translators would have done a slightly better job they would have translated it as:

“𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘢𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝙈𝙖𝙨𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝘎𝘰𝘥 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝙇𝙤𝙧𝙙 𝘑𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘴 𝘊𝘩𝘳𝘪𝘴𝘵.”

Why does this present a difficult challenge for the Calvinist KJVOnlyst? Because of 2 Peter 2:1. Many Reformed theologians strongly argue the Second Epistle of Peter does not identify Jesus as the ‘master’ in 2:1 buying and owning the false prophets. Calvinism teaches these false prophets could not have been bought/redeemed by the blood of Christ because true believers cannot fall away or be damned.

Because the title ‘Kyrion’ is used, the Calvinist believer would have to either choose to appeal to the infallibility of the KJB, acknowledge the master as Jesus (through the divine use of Kyrion) and accept the fact this verse destroys the doctrine of Limited Atonement; -𝗼𝗿- defend Particular Redemption by acknowledging the KJB should not have used the term Lord since the master being referred in 2 Peter 2:1 has nothing to do with Jesus or God the Father and is in no way related to the phrasing of Jude 1:4.

These irreconcilable situations are wrong no matter what solutions are provided. We objectively know the primary meaning of ‘despotēn’ is ‘master’, and we objectively know the scope of the atonement is a universal one. Other verses likes Hebrews 10:29 definitely prove there is no such thing as Limited Atonement.

 

800px-kingjamesbible1612-1613