The Patristic interpretation of Matthew 16:18, 19

(Sample Introduction)

By: Moses Flores

 

 

 

The Roman Catholic Church prides itself in the claim that she has never once changed her doctrines. She is “always the same” according to her Sacred Tradition.  As we have already seen, Rome alone claims to possess that which is able to properly define and interpret the true meaning of Scripture.  Rome affirmed herself to this position in the Council of Trent when she declared:

 

“Furthermore, in order to restrain petulant spirits, It decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,--in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, --wresting the sacred Scripture to his owwn senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,--whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,--hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers; even though such interpretations were never (intended) to be at any time published. Contraveners shall be made known by their Ordinaries, and be punished with the penalties by law established[i].

 

            Here, Rome clearly states that any interpretation of Scripture must be in accord with the sense given to it by the Church and according to the “unanimous consent of the Fathers.[ii]”  This statement is an infallible statement by the fact that it was pronounced to be so as an ecumenical council with the approval of the Pope.  Thus, for any future Roman Catholic dogma and doctrine to deviate from what Trent decreed incurs the Anathema of God according to Rome. 

            This same position of the interpretation of the Scriptures being according to the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” was reiterated in the First Vatican Council in 1870 wherein the Dogma of Papal Infallibility was pronounced.  In quite a few places, that council stated her doctrines were “in accordance with the ancient and unchanging faith of the whole church”[iii]; that her traditions have been “received from the beginning of the Christian faith.[iv]”  Also, Vatican I stated,

 

“Likewise I accept sacred scripture according to that sense which Holy Mother Church held and holds, since it is her right to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy scriptures; nor will I ever receive and interpret them except according to the unanimous consent of the fathers.[v]”

 

and,

 

“In consequence, it is not permissible for anyone to interpret holy scripture in a sense contrary to this, or indeed against the unanimous consent of the fathers.[vi]”

 

            All these are infallible statements that also incur the anathema of God according to Rome if they are violated. 

            Why is all this relevant to the interpretation of the Matthew 16:18-19?  Remember what Rome claims is the true interpretation of this text.  First, that the Rock that Jesus was speaking of was Peter, in his person and office as Vicar of Christ on earth.  Secondly, that Peter alone was conferred with the “keys of the Kingdom” which was the authority to rule and govern the Church.  Finally, in Jesus’ statement, “the gates of Hades shall not prevail…” is the institution of the gift of Papal Infallibility, which Vatican I is most noted for defining. 

            The question before us, then, is has the Church always understood this passage of Scripture in this particular way?  More importantly, are the Fathers “unanimous” in their interpretation of this text?  It is the belief of the author that the majority of the Fathers did not interpret the text in this sense, nor was their any unanimity in the interpretation of the Fathers on this important text.  Some believed that Christ was the Rock; others believed that Peter’s faith was the Rock; and still, others believed that Peter was the Rock but not in the sense of the universal head of the Church on earth. 

            If the above propositions can be proven then Rome has a problem because she violates her own hermeneutical principles and incurs her own anathema.  On top of that, she exists in a state of contradiction which removes her validity to her claims as an ultimate authority for Christian doctrine.  The question of whether or not Rome has the support she claims is, thus, justified indeed.  Rome believes it to be so important that loss of salvation is imminent for those who deny their interpretation of this text given at Vatican I[vii].  Does Vatican I faithfully “adhere to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith[viii]”?  The Fathers speak.

________________________________________________________________________