Orthodox answer to Matt 16:17?

[Jebediah]

As some of you know, I am abandoning Protestant positions as incoherent and untenable. This means, as a person who wishes to give himself to God and God's will, I must convert to either the RCC or Orthodoxy. There is no question that it is between them. I was born and raised Roman, but lost my faith when I was a child. I am leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I want to give the RCC their day in court. I asked them for an argument for the RCC vs. the EO. They responded with a couple Early Church Father quotes and Matt. 16:17. Oh, and that since I was a cradle Catholic I "have the roots", which I consider a meaningless argument (look, it's either the true Church or not; I want to serve God in the way He wants me to, not work out some unresolved childhood trauma).

Matt 16:17
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691c)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691d)] will not overcome it.[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691e)] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692f)] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692g)] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I consider the quote from scripture to be important, and I want to see the Orthodox response.

As well there are these, which I care less about than the scripture:

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

[Annoula]

dear Jebediah,

i can't comment on the quotes you gave. i hope that other people in here will be able to.

i only wanted to say (and you may already know that...) that there are signs around us that lead us to a specific way.
personally i try to read these signs, interpret them the proper way and go on in my life according to them. i am not always successful, but i do not give up. life is a game...

i wish you all the best... may the Light lead your soul in the place you are destined for...

[ByzantineDixie]

Jebediah,

Blessings on your journey.

One could end up with a severe case of "quotitis" if one attempts to prove their case either "for" or "against" the notion of Peter as Rock = Roman Pope by quoting the fathers.

It is true that some fathers saw Peter as the rock but others, and by far the majority of them (the consensus), understood the rock to be Peter's confession of faith.
Upon This Rock. Theodore of Mopsuestia: This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaining to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed beforehand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter

Simonetti, M. (2002). Matthew 14-28. Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture NT 1b. (Page 45). Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press.



There will be other's here who can better address this issue with more insight and detail. I know I had to wrestle with it myself in determining which direction to travel...East or West.

Peace

[Ioan cel Nou]

Hi Jebediah,

I'd just like to point out something that I realised when I was researching this. It doesn't matter if the RCs are correct in their interpretation of Peter as the Rock (and I don't believe they are). Even if they are right, they still have to come up with a reason why the Pope is his successor and, on top of that, why any of Peter's privileges (if he had any) would pass on to the Pope. On the first point, Peter founded Antioch, through his disciple Mark he founded Alexandria and he had a hand (along with Paul) in the founding of Rome. In what way, then, is the Pope of Rome the successor rather than a successor to Peter? On the second point, I don't see much evidence in Scripture for Peter as an infallible head of the whole Church, so I really don't see any evidence for his having any privileges to pass on, and nor is there any indication that any such pribvileges might be passed on.

I've found that RCs like to proof text the Fathers much as Protestants proof text the Bible, and you've evidently been shown such quotes as evidence for their position. I, however, honestly do not see any support for the modern papacy (let alone RC innovations in faith) in the patristic concensus. Even their own popes do not support the modern papacy. Witness the letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great in opposition to John the Faster's use of the title Ecumenical Patriarch.

A text I found useful (though evidently a little biased as the author became Orthodox) when reading up on the Church history is The Papacy by Abbe Guettee (sp?). I've lost my link, but you can find it online as a (long) .pdf. If nothing else, it's a great source of quotes opposed to the usual RC view which you can use when they start proof texting.

James

[EvangeliGirl]

Hi Jebediah,

I met with Father Patrick Reardon yesterday and he said that it is a mistake that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even though many Orthodox hold this view he said that Peter was never a bishop at all, he was a traveling missionary who appointed bishops. (Father Reardon was raised Catholic, went to seminary and was a Trapist monk for 15 years, then left RC after Vatican II.) It doesnt seem to me that Jesus was making a political statement to Peter, but delegating spiritual authority. Wouldnt this authority be inseperable from the hitorical tradition of the church then? From what little Ive been taught so far it seems that the bishop in Rome did not move in accord with established tradition as instituted by Christ and perpetuated by the Holy Spirit when he assumed himself to be the universal head of the church, rather his assumption was based on the power of Rome. Forgive me if it is offensive for someone who knows so little to speak up, but I am processing all this too. I guess beyond this you would have to look at the whole 'filoque' debate, too. God bless.

[HandmaidenOfGod]

Hi Jebediah,

I met with Father Patrick Reardon yesterday and he said that it is a mistake that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even though many Orthodox hold this view he said that Peter was never a bishop at all, he was a traveling missionary who appointed bishops. (Father Reardon was raised Catholic, went to seminary and was a Trapist monk for 15 years, then left RC after Vatican II.) It doesnt seem to me that Jesus was making a political statement to Peter, but delegating spiritual authority. Wouldnt this authority be inseperable from the hitorical tradition of the church then? From what little Ive been taught so far it seems that the bishop in Rome did not move in accord with established tradition as instituted by Christ and perpetuated by the Holy Spirit when he assumed himself to be the universal head of the church, rather his assumption was based on the power of Rome. Forgive me if it is offensive for someone who knows so little to speak up, but I am processing all this too. I guess beyond this you would have to look at the whole 'filoque' debate, too. God bless.

Good answer! :thumbsup:

[choirfiend]

The Orthodox response to that quote from Matthew is that Christ was founding His Church upon the "rock" of Peter's confession (that he stated directly before that quote.)

When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. 19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=47&chapter=16&version=50#fen-NKJV-23686d)] in heaven.”
20 Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.

The Orthodox usually point out that in the succeeding verses, Christ calls Peter Satan.
From that time Jesus began to show to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day.
22 Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!”
23 But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men.”

It seems strange to the Orthodox Tradition of this Scripture that Christ would say that Peter was the foundation of the Church, and yet Peter could be Satan in the very next breath. (Also an argument against infallibility).

Abbe Guettee's The Papacy (http://www.odox.net/The%20Papacy%20Guettee%20-%20Kirwan.pdf)is an excellent document.

[Rilian]

The answer from the notes of the OSB is here (http://www.assumptioncathedral.org/about/answer.asp?faq_id=23) .

[Michael the Iconographer]

As some of you know, I am abandoning Protestant positions as incoherent and untenable. This means, as a person who wishes to give himself to God and God's will, I must convert to either the RCC or Orthodoxy. There is no question that it is between them. I was born and raised Roman, but lost my faith when I was a child. I am leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I want to give the RCC their day in court. I asked them for an argument for the RCC vs. the EO. They responded with a couple Early Church Father quotes and Matt. 16:17. Oh, and that since I was a cradle Catholic I "have the roots", which I consider a meaningless argument (look, it's either the true Church or not; I want to serve God in the way He wants me to, not work out some unresolved childhood trauma).

Matt 16:17
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691c)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691d)] will not overcome it.[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691e)] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692f)] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692g)] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I consider the quote from scripture to be important, and I want to see the Orthodox response.

As well there are these, which I care less about than the scripture:

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

What is the question? Are you suggesting this scripture says that Peter is the Pope with infallibility, primacy of jurisdiction, and has authority that goes beyond what 1 Nicea grants to Bishops? There is nothing of that in this scripture. Yes, he is given the place as first among equals. But no where does Christ tell the other Apostles that they must submit to him. If that were so, why was it James and not Peter who chaired the Council of Jerusalem? Further, if Peter were supreme, Gentiles would not have been let into the Church because he was set against it. Tell me, which is more important Church unity or protecting the faith from heresy? 1 Nicea also pronounced Anathema on anyone who added to the creed without consent of an Ecumenical Council. If Peter and his chair were all powerful and forever protected from heresy, then why did the Pope give in in 800 AD to the threat of physical force from Charlemagne to accept the Filioque? Further, if Peter were all powerful, why is it that when the Canon of scripture was declare in 382 by the Pope that it took until the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390s for the Bishops of the Church to ratify that decision? Scripture fails to provide any real solid reason for Rome's insistance on the position of the Pope.

[Jebediah]

What is the question? Are you suggesting this scripture says that Peter is the Pope with infallibility, primacy of jurisdiction, and has authority that goes beyond what 1 Nicea grants to Bishops? There is nothing of that in this scripture. Yes, he is given the place as first among equals. But no where does Christ tell the other Apostles that they must submit to him. If that were so, why was it James and not Peter who chaired the Council of Jerusalem? Further, if Peter were supreme, Gentiles would not have been let into the Church because he was set against it. Tell me, which is more important Church unity or protecting the faith from heresy? 1 Nicea also pronounced Anathema on anyone who added to the creed without consent of an Ecumenical Council. If Peter and his chair were all powerful and forever protected from heresy, then why did the Pope give in in 800 AD to the threat of physical force from Charlemagne to accept the Filioque? Further, if Peter were all powerful, why is it that when the Canon of scripture was declare in 382 by the Pope that it took until the councils of Hippo and Carthage in the 390s for the Bishops of the Church to ratify that decision? Scripture fails to provide any real solid reason for Rome's insistance on the position of the Pope.

For someone who starts out asking "what is the question" you certainly answered it well. :thumbsup:

Thanks, the question is answered sufficiently.

[Michael the Iconographer]

For someone who starts out asking "what is the question" you certainly answered it well. :thumbsup:

Thanks, the question is answered sufficiently.

The Catholic understanding of that scripture, which I know very well for I once studied the Catholic faith at an indepth level and was a catholic seminarian, is very skewed. It totally neglects the view the early church took of the papacy and is very slanted toward understanding it in such a manner as to ascribe to papism. I not nearly as well versed on Church history as I should be, but it was made clear in the early church that the bishop and not the pope was the gaurantor of Orthodoxy. St. Ignatius of Antioch says this very thing in his epsitles. He died arround 110 AD.

[The Virginian]

As some of you know, I am abandoning Protestant positions as incoherent and untenable. This means, as a person who wishes to give himself to God and God's will, I must convert to either the RCC or Orthodoxy. There is no question that it is between them. I was born and raised Roman, but lost my faith when I was a child. I am leaning towards Orthodoxy, but I want to give the RCC their day in court. I asked them for an argument for the RCC vs. the EO. They responded with a couple Early Church Father quotes and Matt. 16:17. Oh, and that since I was a cradle Catholic I "have the roots", which I consider a meaningless argument (look, it's either the true Church or not; I want to serve God in the way He wants me to, not work out some unresolved childhood trauma).

Matt 16:17
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter,[c (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691c)] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[d (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691d)] will not overcome it.[e (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23691e)] 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be[f (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692f)] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt%2016&version=31#fen-NIV-23692g)] loosed in heaven." 20Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.

I consider the quote from scripture to be important, and I want to see the Orthodox response.

The whole matter hinges around a single point: When Jesus says, "...upon this rock....", was He referring to the Peterine confession there at Caesarea, or was He referring to Peter himself ? it's obvious that the Orthodox Church historically, has held to the former interprertation!

"...but My righteous one shall live
by faith, and if he shrinks back, My
soul has no pleasure in him."

[FlyFast]

From The Orthodox New Testament, Vol. 1, The Gospels, pg. 105,

16:18a “On this rock” – feminine demonstrative pronoun and article – does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter.

Blessed Theophylact: “The Lord is saying, ‘This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe.” [P.G. 123:85B (col. 320).]

Saint Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build”; that is, on the faith of the confession.” [Hom. 54, P.G. 58:518 (col. 534).]

Saint Leo: “Upon this firmness, He says, I shall raise My Temple, and it will rise upon the steadfastness of this faith, and the loftiness of My Church will mingle with the heavens. The gates of Hades shall not master this profession; nor the bonds of death bind it. For these words are the words of life, and as they raise those who confess them up to heaven, so they plunge those that deny them down to hell.” [Sermon 83(2), P.L. 54 (col. 429), in FC, 93:357; Toal, III:267, 268.]

Saint Bede: “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build My Church. Upon this turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is My Church.” [“Homily I.16, After Epiphany”, Homilies on the Gospels, Bk. One, 163.]

[OrthoCanuck]

I'm in the midst of reading THE PRIMACY OF PETER, edited by John Myendorff (SVS Press). This issue was the main difficulty I had as a Catholic and spent a lot of time researching the issue. However, I never really read a comprehensive account of the Orthodox position. I'm not too far into the book, but it seems very well done. It contains 5 essays from 5 Orthodox scholars. When I finish I should be able to answer the question far more effectively. I recommend it to anyone who wants to explore Petrine Primacy from an Orthodox perspective.


Peace.

[Jacob4707]

From The Orthodox New Testament, Vol. 1, The Gospels, pg. 105,

16:18a “On this rock” – feminine demonstrative pronoun and article – does not refer to the person of Peter. Christ would have used the masculine if He were referring to the person of Peter.

Blessed Theophylact: “The Lord is saying, ‘This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe.” [P.G. 123:85B (col. 320).]

Saint Chrysostom: “Upon this rock I will build”; that is, on the faith of the confession.” [Hom. 54, P.G. 58:518 (col. 534).]

Saint Leo: “Upon this firmness, He says, I shall raise My Temple, and it will rise upon the steadfastness of this faith, and the loftiness of My Church will mingle with the heavens. The gates of Hades shall not master this profession; nor the bonds of death bind it. For these words are the words of life, and as they raise those who confess them up to heaven, so they plunge those that deny them down to hell.” [Sermon 83(2), P.L. 54 (col. 429), in FC, 93:357; Toal, III:267, 268.]

Saint Bede: “Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock from which thou didst receive thy name, that is, upon Me Myself, I will build My Church. Upon this turns aside from the society of this confession, even though it may seem to him that he does great things, he will not belong to the building which is My Church.” [“Homily I.16, After Epiphany”, Homilies on the Gospels, Bk. One, 163.]

It is interesting, however, that several noted Protestant/Evangelical Greek scholars, among them D. A. Carson and others who have NO desire to be apologists for the Catholic office of the Papacy, believe that the Greek text is referring to Peter - not his faith or statement of faith - as being the rock that Jesus is referring to. See the notes for this passage in the Word Biblical Commentary volume on Matthew for the list of their names. The gender of the demonstrative pronoun houtos, hautê, touto, is not conclusive for the argument (yes, it's feminine to agree with the feminine word petra). Thus, it is not necessarily true that Christ would have had to have used the masculine to refer to Peter, although in my opinion, if He had wanted to refer to Peter, He could have said, "You are Peter, and on you I will build My church." By saying, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," if He had been referring to Peter, I think He would have had to have done one of two things:

1. Stop speaking to Peter and turn to the other disciples to say (while pointing to Peter), "and upon this rock (point to Peter) I will build My church, " etc., and then turn back to Peter to speak again to him alone and say what He says in Matthew 16:19.

2. Keep speaking to Peter and point to him or his chest while saying, "and upon this rock I will build my church," etc.

In the Greek, however, Petros has to be masculine, because Peter is a man - so in referring to Simon as a rock, Jesus has to call him a Petros, not a petra. But in the likely-original-Aramaic, I understand that "Peter" and "rock" would be the same word, with no change for gender - though when translated into Greek, the translator would use the word Petros for Peter and petra for rock. Thus, there is some basis for saying that Jesus was referring to Peter as the rock on which He'll build his church. It can't be conclusively proven from the text itself whether Jesus did or did not mean Peter the person (as opposed to Peter's statement).