www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Peter the Rock

Dear Dan, +May the LORD bless you! First of all, although Peter was given the prominent role as the first of the apostles, he was always equal to the other apostles. Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter. Moreover the �keys� were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18). The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, �Thou art Peter,� He called him �PETROS,� which means �small stone.� But when He says, �Upon this rock I will build my Church� the Greek term for rock is not Petros but �PETRA� which means �bedrock.� This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ�s Divinity.

Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: �It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.� (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Furthermore, he taught that Peter�s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: �As soon as Peter heard these words, �Whom say ye that I am?� remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.� (Ibid., p. 174).

Blessed Augustine, one of the �Doctors� of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul�s mouth: �I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry� (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter�s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. �He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons� (Ibid., p. 176).

The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.

Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?

Fourth, Jerusalem had unique authority in the Church. It was the Mother of all the Churches. But it never attempted to lord it over the other Churches as its supposed successor did.

And fifth, if we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and (from) Jerusalem to Rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the Apostle and of Jerusalem. Rome, however, has claimed more authority that Peter or Jerusalem ever claimed.

The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: �I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others� (Ibid., 226).

Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. �It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall� (Ibid., p. 223).

Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: �Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, �as you have commanded me.� I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity� (Ibid., p. 227). Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter�s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?

It is illuminating to understand that even some very illustrious Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits, �...throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege� (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70). Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. �The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization� (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200).

The Church was never intended to be an institutional government that is ruled with worldly power (See Matt. 23:8-10). Rather its leaders must be the servant of all. Orthodox rejoice that the Pope now prefers to be called the servant of the servants of God. Sadly, this has not always been the case, and its claims have at times been incongruent with these words of Christ. I entreat my Catholic friends to examine these facts. Do they not give ample evidence that the cause of the Great Schism is rooted in the exaggerated Papal claims and that the way to unity is to return to the Church which did not fall into this error?

With utmost respect,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Father,

With greatest respect, My post is not about how the Orthodox perceive the evils of the Roman Catholic view of Peter. My thread is about the acclamation of Peter (not just his confession) to be the Rock. This they do in the liturgy referenced. So far, all of the explanations about Peter not being the Rock have fallen well short of addressing this one prayer in the liturgy. There may be more such prayers. I haven't looked. But it would seem to me that if the Orthodox recognize Peter as the Rock the Orthodox are only whistling in the dark when they reject the Catholics exact same affirmation.

The two theological developments and nuances could live side by side in a Church that recognized each other communion.

I believe that ego has far more to do with this continued rift than theology.

If you can, and you so choose, convince me otherwise.

Dan Lauffer

Dear Dan, If I have spoken badly...I apologize. I merely tried to share the understanding of the East with regard to the passage (not just the Orthodox understanding...see if you will, the Melkite Patriarch's speeches at the II Vatican Council and you'll understand better what I mean).

Again if I have offended, I am sincerely sorry.

Perhaps this is not such a good forum for an honest discussion of Orthodox-Catholic theology after all???

In Him Who calls us,
+Father Archimandrite Gregory

Father,

I suppose you are right if you choose not to discuss the issue I presented. I think most Eastern Catholics and Orthodox would agree with your analysis concerning the different theological developments surrounding the view of the Roman Bishop. I certainly do. I suppose I could have included the posts that you did but I'm afraid we've been over and over them. What I'd really like to know is:

"Can someone please tell me whatever is the excuse for continued division between East and West when this is an Orthodox liturgical text?"

"Peter, the rock of faith,
the fervent intercessor,
again lifts us up together for a spiritual feast,
setting before us his precious chains
as provision for a costly banquet
that our infirmities may be healed and our sorrows consoled,
and the storm-tossed ships of our life brought to harbor.
Come, let us kiss them, and entreat Christ Who glorified him,//
saying: By his prayers, O Christ, save our souls!
January 16: Veneration of the chains of the holy Apostle Peter"

Peter, as stated in Orthodox liturgy, is the Rock. The liturgy does not say that the Rock is Peter's confession of faith, though that is probably implied as part and parcel, but it does say "Peter the Rock". I can agree with virtually everything you posted as an explanation for different views of this definition of "Peter the Rock". What I don't see is why the Orthodox deny that Peter is the Rock as a reason for continued disharmony among the faithful, on the one hand, and affirm that very doctrine in her liturgy, on the other.

If this isn't egotistical please help me understand why it is not.

BTW I'm thankful that you do not attack Eastern Catholics as somehow traitors to the cause as many Orthodox do. But I really do not understand when the Orthodox and the Catholic's profess the same faith, why, outside of ego, does a rift still persist.

Dan L

I think that intellectual honesty in such matters is most important. If the text below did not exist and there was no support for the Orthodox position I don't think the Orthodox would question supremacy etc. The Orthodox patristic views can not be disregarded or reduced to support the Roman Catholic supremacy developments.

The following post is text from Matthew Steenberg who is at Oxford furthering his studies. He's very objective and non prejudiced in many of his commentaries at least from my perspective.

Some of the most straightforward remarks in this regard actually come down to us from St Gregory the Great, pope of Rome in the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. His remarks were occassioned by the Emperor's application of the title 'Ecumenical Patriarch' to St John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory was deeply disturbed by this title, not because he felt that its attribution to a patriarch other than that of the see of St Peter was improper, but because he felt the very notion of such a title or rank was incorrect (we must keep in mind that St Gregory understood 'ecumenical' to mean universal in authority and power, which is not how the term as it is used in the title 'ecumanical patriarch' has come down to us today'). In response to this, St Gregory writes to St John:


"Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John -- what were these but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head [...] the prelates of this Apostolic See [i.e. Rome], which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called 'universal' (oikoumenikos) by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. Yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or has seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren [...]"
(Excerpted from Book 5 of the collected epistles of St Gregory the Great of Rome, Epistle 18).

Later he writes in a similar vein:

"This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve [i.e. the see of Rome]. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren..."
(Book 5, Epistle 43)

When, a short time later he writes to the Emperor (Maurice) on the matter, he is yet more emphatic:

"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
(Book 7, Epistle 33)

Later, he writes to the Bishop of Alexandria (Evlogios):

"Your Blessedness [...] You address me saying, 'As you have commanded'. This word 'command' I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am and who you are. For in position you are my brother, in character my father. [...] In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you, most sweet Holiness: do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself [...] For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally."
(Book 8, Epistle 30)

There are multiple things of note in these quotations, but among them I might simply point out Gregory's own insistence that, prior to his own day (he reposed in A.D. 604), no bishop of Rome had ever claimed episcopal primacy of authority.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew Steenberg's additional comments.


The notion of distinguishing between Peter's confession and Peter's person in the ascription of the title 'Rock' by Christ has always struck me as a bit dualistic. Both are certainly true, and we must keep in mind that many Orthodox Fathers ascribe the title directly to Peter's person, without equivocation, as warranted by his confession. The desire to divide the two has, I assume, been occassioned over the course of history precisely by the desire to compare and relate the RC and Orthodox understandings of Peter's episcopacy and its place in relation to the other patriarchates.

But as much as both statements are true (namely, that the title 'rock' applies both to Peter himself and to his confession), so both are incorrect and dualist. If discussions such as this have anything to learn from the long history of Orthodox ascetical theology, it is that person and confession can only be divided and separated if neither one is whole or complete. True confession is the fruit and manifestation of purified personhood, and one's person embodies and makes real his or her confession.

For Orthodoxy, St Peter is the rock -- the rock upon which Christ will and has built His Church. This is true of Peter's person, for, as Aaron noted, Peter is the first among bishops, the prototype and model of hierarchs. It is also true of his confession, for Christ as the living Son of God is the heart and life of the Church, and without that confession she does not stand.

This is all, however, somewhat separated from a discussion on the 'primacy' of any one bishop over another. We have seen, in another thread, quotations from multiple Fathers who show that this 'first position' of St Peter and of his patriarchate does not equate to primacy of authority, rule or power. We have also seen, in the current thread, that the earliest Church, that still reigned over by the Apostles, honoured St Peter but called its first council under the omophor of St James.

Matthew,

I have little to add to your thoughtful comments. I do agree that Rome has frequently overstepped her authority. I wish that all later Pope's had heeded Pope Gregory's example.

What do you believe the possibility is that there will be in this century a truly ecumenical council called in order to bring some sense to the issue of the place of Peter in the Church?

Dan Lauffer

Yeah!! What has taken you guys SO long???????

Brian:

. . . because a "heretical" Church cannot join a "schismatic" Church?

AmdG

Dear Dan,

I trust in those that Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ wills to address such matters.

I think if any further movement is directed away from traditional Orthodox positions the entire matter including the papacy becomes increasingly more difficult to address.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Father Archimandrite Gregory:

As you know, Christ spoke Aramaic with his apostles because that was the common language in the region.

The Aramaic word for rock is Kepa. After Peter made his rock solid profession of faith, Christ said to him:

You are Kepa and upon this kepa I will build my Church.

Thus you get:

You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church.

Unlike Aramaic, as you know in Greek there is a difference in gender between nouns, masculine for petros and feminine for petra. The Greek text was written this way most likely so that Peter, being a man, would not have to be ascribed a feminine name. This is a limitation in Greek. In Aramaic, you would not have this problem.

In the New Testament, there are versus where Kepa is transliterated as Kephas, for instance 1 Cor. 1:12, thus showing Simon's new name as Rock in the early Church.

Among the Chaldeans, Peter is traditionally refered to as Mar Shimun Kepa or St. Simon the Rock.

Having said all that, I will give you now this sentence, would you agree with it?

Christ the Rock, build His Church upon Simon the Rock because Simon had professed a rock solid faith.

God bless,

Rony

As a side note, I've heard Protestants make the claim that Peter could not be the rock because petra is in the feminine gender. Yet Christ himself is referred to as petra in 1 Corinthians 10:4.

Dear Father Archimandrite Gregory,

I posted this in another relevant topic area, hope this helps.


The explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact says the following. I understand that The Blessed Theophylact's explanation has been historically used by slavic Orthodox monastics for quite some time.


He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, "the" , but with the article, �the Son�, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

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 Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him "Bar Jona", that is, son of Jona", as if saying, "Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him." He calls this knowledge "revelation", speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, "This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation." For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying "My Church" He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said "O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death" (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for "ye remit", aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, "whose soever sins thou remittest", but since "ye" is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. "The heavens" also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in aquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.


In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

So accordingly then the present Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople is the Anti Chirst because he persist in using the title to apply to himself?

Also I would suggest that anyone who would make an argument based on the greek text of Petros (small stone) should realize that Christ was speaking in Aramaic. (Kipha) a sizable stone as can be seen from the geographical region were Jesus spoke these words to Blessed Peter.
The massive rock formation at Caesarea Philppi was the inference of Jesus to Peter.

StephanosI

Dear StephanosI,

What are you saying and what title are you referring to?