www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The "Rock" of Matthew 16:16-19

The traditional Catholic position is that St Peter is the "Rock" of whom Jesus spoke. There are some Fathers who state this. For example, see:
http://www.catholic.com/answers/tracts/_p_rock.htm

On the St Leo & the Papacy thread there was some disagreement on this subject. And, there are some Fathers who had differing views.

Who is the Rock?

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Who is the Rock?

Dave Ignatius

**********


The Prudential Insurance Company

Kurt

Dear Kurt,

ROFLOL.

Michael

Dear everyone,

For those of you who do not know the abbreviation ROFLOL, it means Rolling on the Floor Laughing out Loud.

Peter/rock: is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). Rock refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of his faith. The true Rock and foundation of the Church is Christ Himself. The Church rests upon this Rock by her unchanging faith, her confession. With this faith as the foundation, the gates of Hades, the powers of death, are powerless against her.

Keys of the kingdom clearly implies a special authority given to Peter himself, but never separated from his confession of faith. While Peter was a leader of the disciples and of the early Church, all the apostles were empowered with Christ's authority (18:18). Peter was not a leader over the others but a leader among them, as seen at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15), where elders, or presbyters, met with the apostles together as equals. Papal claims in later centuries must not be confused with the NT witness regarding Peter, nor should the role of Peter in the NT be minimized in opposition to those claims.

June 30 Kontakion. Second Tone

Now Christ God, the Rock, doth glorify the rock of faith illustriously, the first of the disciples' choir, with great Paul together with all the company of the Twelve today; as we keep their mem'ry with faith, we glorify Him that glorified them all.

Peter is the rock. Jesus takes the time to give Simon a new name just as Abram and Jacob were given new names (Abraham, Israel).

The Lord did build his church on Peter and Peter's confession. Peter was the spokesman and leader of the church. We have Jesus specific prayers for Peter and his restoration and charge to Peter of "feed my sheep". Before his ascension into heaven, the Good Shepherd gives charge of his sheep to the Rock.

Dear Tim,

You said:
Peter/rock: is a play on the word for rock in Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra).

My response:
This is just not the whole truth. There is only ONE word for rock in Aramaic and that is the language Jesus spoke. The ONLY word for rock in Aramaic is Kepha. Christ said; "Thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church." There is no word play in what Christ actualy spoke here. Kepha has the same ending (no gender) when it refers to a rock or when it is used as a mans name. Later though, when Matthew's Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek a translation problem did arise. In Greek, the standard word for rock is petra which is feminine in gender. The translator could use petra for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence but it would not be proper for the first because he could not give a man the feminine ending name of petra. To translate the rest of the sentence properly he put a masculine ending on the word which is Petros. So the sentance HAD to read: "Thou art Petros (masculine in gender for Simon's new name), and upon this petra (feminine in gender and the standard word for rock in Greek) I will build my Church." I must also note that in both English and French translations (as was the case with the original Aramaic) there is no gender problem as there is in the Greek language. In English it could properly read; "Thou art Rock (we use Peter here though), and upon this rock I will build my Church." In Modern French Bibles they use the word pierre in both places. So Tim, what you said above was both WRONG in one place as well a not the whole story in another.

You went on to say:
Rock refers not to Peter himself but to the confession of his faith. The true Rock and foundation of the Church is Christ Himself.

My responce:
Once again this is not the whole truth. With all of the correct information, the meaning of these passages and others is very hard to miss. Read the Fathers of the Church, they understood the true meaning and significants of what Christ was saying here. Yes, Christ is the primary foundation and head of His Church, but Peter was appointed by Christ as the secondary (earthly) foundation and head of His Church. You as an Eastern Orthodox Christian who is seperated from the chair of Peter (the head of Christ's Church here on earth) MUST (just as the protestants do) use these arguments so you can deny Christ's divine establishment of the papacy.

A Brother in Christ,

John Johnson



[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-21-1999).]

Dear John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

You are correct re: "kepha" and "petros/petra." "Petros", however, is in fact a Greek masculine noun -- it means "stone" (as distinguished from "rock").

But: the Church Fathers are not unanimous in understanding that Peter, as opposed to his confession of faith, is the "rock" referred to. They often alternate the meaning ascribed to the "rock." See Pope St. Leo and the Papacy thread, specifically citations drawn from St. John Chrysostom.

This issue is not so cut-and-dried as you may think. I would advise you, as a new member of this forum, not to think of the Orthodox rejection of the "jurisdictional papacy" in such strong terms (you seem to argue that they make this argument after the fact of separation, when, for many Orthodox Christians, it is the very REASON for separation). And the Orthodox argument is not without defense in Holy Scripture, the 7 Ocumenical Councils, and the writings of the Fathers.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

Dear Theophilos,

I understand that petros means "stone" (as distinguished from "rock") in Greek. As you also said though, in agreement with what I said, petros is a Greek masculine noun. So, as such it had to be used for Simon's new name. A feminine gender name like petra for a man would have been improper usage. I am sure the stone/ROCK word play was not the intent of the translator and the feminine/masculine ending of the Greek words was the reason for the difference. I also believe all the other evidence from the Bible, the fathers and Church History show that (as I said before) Christ is the primary foundation and head of His Church, but Peter was appointed by Christ as the secondary (earthly) foundation and head of His Church.
As a Byzantine Catholic, what do you believe about this issue?

A Brother In Christ,


John Johnson

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-21-1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-21-1999).]

Dear John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

My (and dare I say, the Byzantine Catholic) understanding of the papacy is presented, for the most part, in the "Eastern and Catholic" threads and in "Pope St. Leo and the Papacy."

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

I remember reading some of the texts for Vespers and Matins for the feast of Sts Peter and Paul (June 29) while visiting the monastery of St John of San Francisco near Pt Reyes, California. I was surprised how clearly they refer to St Peter as the Rock. I will try to post some of those texts in the near future. It's on another computer and I'll be off line for a few days due to work schedule conflicts...so it may be a few days or a week or so before I can.

Dave Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

>>>I remember reading some of the texts for Vespers and Matins for the feast of Sts Peter and Paul (June 29) while visiting the monastery
of St John of San Francisco near Pt Reyes, California. I was surprised how clearly they refer to St Peter as the Rock. I will try to post some
of those texts in the near future. It's on another computer and I'll be off line for a few days due to work schedule conflicts...so it may be
a few days or a week or so before I can.<<<

There can be little doubt that the Fathers, while referring to Christ as the "Rock" of out salvation, also refer to Peter as the Rock, or more specifically, to Peter's profession of faith as the "rock' upon which the Church is founded.

A more significant line of dipute has been the implications of that fact. While a number of papalist apologetics have tried (almost from the beginning of the papacy) to imply that a particular charism was bestowed upon Peter to the exculsion of the other apostles, and upon the "successors" of Peter over the successors of the other apostles, it is pretty clear that the consensus patri was that Peter received a charism on behalf of all the apostles, a charism that was universally shared with them (cf. Cyrpian of Carthage, On the Unity of the Church). If Peter's faith is the rock on which the Church is founded, that faith was shared with the other Apostles in a way which was both equal and indivisible.

Similarly, the Fathers noted that the Episcopal charism is both one and indivisible, in the same way that the Eucharist is one and indivisible, despite the multiplicity of chalices. They also noted that the Apostolic charism was of a different degree than the episcopal charism. Peter was an Apostle, Peter's successor is not. Whatever gifts and powers Peter might have been given do not transfer to Peter's successors simply by virtue of election to the Episcopal throne of Rome. Consider also that Antioch was founded by Peter, so is not the Patriarch of Antioch ALSO Peter's successor? If he is not, then there must be another reason why Rome was, historically, the Church with priority, and another understanding of the meaning and exercise of primacy.

[This message has been edited by StuartK (edited 11-22-1999).]

Dear StuartK,

You said:

There can be little doubt that the Fathers, while referring to Christ as the "Rock" of our salvation, also refer to Peter as the Rock, (**********or more specifically, to Peter's profession of faith as the "rock' upon which the Church is founded.***********)


My responce:

First off, you are correct in saying that; "There can be little doubt that the Fathers, while referring to Christ as the "Rock" of our salvation, also refer to Peter as the Rock...". Though, when you go on to say above: "or more specifically, to Peter's profession of faith as the "rock' upon which the Church is founded." you are incorrect. I am no expert on grammar (as is easy to see by the grammatical DIS-structure of my posts), but it seems that there is a rule in proper grammar that would say the phrase "this rock" in Mt 16:18 must relate to the closest noun. So, this part of your statment cannot be true according to this rule. Peter's profession of faith ("thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier. Simon's new name, which is a proper noun, is in the immediately proceding clause, so Peter (himself) must be the rock Christ will build his Church on (according to this rule of grammer).


You said:

A more significant line of dispute has been the implications of that fact. While a number of papalist apologetics have tried (almost from the beginning of the papacy) to imply that a particular charism was bestowed upon Peter to the exculsion of the other apostles, and upon the "successors" of Peter over the successors of the other apostles, it is pretty clear that the consensus patri was that Peter received a charism on behalf of all the apostles, a charism that was universally shared with them.

My responce:

Leaving the fathers out of this for a second (even though there is MUCH from the fathers that points to Peters, and his successors SPECIAL position in the Church), just the Bible alone says what you state above is incorrect. In Lk 22:31-32 just before Peters denials were predicted, Christ told Peter, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has claimed power over you all, so that he can sift you like wheat: but I have prayed for thee (notice this is SINGULAR), that thy faith may not fail; when, after a while, thou hast come back to me (after He has come back to Christ from his denials), it is for thee to be the support of thy brethren" Christ prayed that Peter would have a faith that would never fail, and that he would guide the other apostles and the Church.

In Mt 16:19 Christ said "I will give to thee (again this is singular usage here) the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (no other apostle was given the keys) Refer also to Is 22:22 for an important verse that forshadows this later important event of Peter and the keys.

After Christ's Resurrection, He singled out Peter once again and commanded him (SINGULAR) to "Feed my sheep" (Jn 21:15-17)

There is more but this should be enough for MOST to see that: A)Peter (himself) was the rock. B)Christ granted Peter a special place and duty over the other apostels and the Church.

You also said:

Whatever gifts and powers Peter might have been given do not transfer to Peter's successors simply by virtue of election to the Episcopal throne of Rome. Consider also that Antioch was founded by Peter, so is not the Patriarch of Antioch ALSO Peter's successor? If he is not, then there must be another reason why Rome was, historically, the Church with priority, and another understanding of the meaning and exercise of
primacy.

My responce:

Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The keys have three important aspects. first, they are a symbol of the power to rule with authority. Second, they are a symbol of the permanence of Peter's office. The office of the keys survives the death of the man holding them, in that these keys will be passed on in succession untill Christ comes back again. Third, Peter alone among the apostles was given these keys. I must ask you, do you really want to say; "Whatever gifts and powers Peter might have been given do not transfer to Peter's successors simply by virtue of election to the Episcopal throne of Rome."? Come on Stuart, that is what apostolic succession is! Peter's authority from Christ will be passed down, just as the authority of the other apostles will be passed down to their successors as they die. In your attempt to discredit the papacy are you willing to deny apostolic succession as well!! All the apostles were giving authority by Christ, Peter was just giving a special authority. All the apostels authority is passed down, this is without doubt what the Church has always taught from the time of Christ untill now. You then said; "Consider also that Antioch was founded by Peter, so is not the Patriarch of Antioch ALSO Peter's successor?" Yes, Antioch was founded by Peter but he left Antioch to another bishop (while he was still alive) and went on to found Rome, were he later died as a martyr. Succession of ones office is passed on at the time of ones death in the place of ones death, and I think the fathers support the fact that Peter did die in Rome and that his Holy See was (because of his death there) in none other than Rome.

A Brother in Christ,

johnj



[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-22-1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-22-1999).]

[This message has been edited by johnj (edited 11-22-1999).]

>>>Though, when you go on to say above: "or more specifically, to Peter's profession of faith as the
"rock' upon which the Church is founded." you are incorrect. I am no expert on grammar (as is easy to see by the grammatical
DIS-structure of my posts), but it seems that there is a rule in proper grammar that would say the phrase "this rock" in Mt 16:18 must
relate to the closest noun. <<<

A rather "protestant" approach to the question, since it goes directly the Scripture and passes over the more pertinent issue, which is the exegetical approach taken by the Fathers to this passage. Needless to say, the Eastern Fathers never accepted the notion that the Church was founded on Peter personally. Even in the West, early Latin Fathers like Tertullian and Cyprian are very careful to separate the person of Peter from his confession, as the foundation of the Church, not the least because they were anxious to repudiate nascent attempts on the part of some bishops of Rome to establish themselves as "bishop over bishops" on the Roman juridical principle that the successor or heir of a person inherited his powers and offices.

>>>Peter was given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. The keys have three important aspects. first, they are a symbol of the power to rule with authority.
Second, they are a symbol of the permanence of Peter's office.<<<

Again, one must look to the Fathers to see how they interpreted the symbol of the keys. They universally accepted the first, but rejected the second in the context of an EXCLUSIVE charism granted to the bishop of Rome as Peter's successor. Rather, they saw this power to bind and loose as being granted through Peter to ALL the Apostles, and through the Apostles to ALL the bishops, each of whom was, is, and will always remain "vicarius Christi".

>>>Come on Stuart, that is what apostolic succession is! Peter's authority from Christ will be passed down, just as the authority of the other apostles
will be passed down to their successors as they die. <<<

One must ask, then, "Why to Rome?" Peter established the see of Antioch prior to going to Rome. Ergo, by all rights, the Bishop of Antioch should be considered Peter's successor by seniority and priority. But he is not, and never really was. Moreover, the bishops of Rome were rather slow in asserting their claims on that basis. A more sound historical and ecclesiastical approach is on of priority of witness; i.e., the Roman Church has primacy because it was the richest in martyrs and had a double apostolic foundation (though where Paul got to in later Roman polemics is a mystery).

>>>In your attempt to discredit the papacy are you willing to deny apostolic succession as well!! All the
apostles were giving authority by Christ, Peter was just giving a special authority. All the apostels authority is passed down, this is without doubt what the
Church has always taught from the time of Christ untill now. You then said; "Consider also that Antioch was founded by Peter, so is not the Patriarch of
Antioch ALSO Peter's successor?" Yes, Antioch was founded by Peter but he left Antioch to another bishop (while he was still alive) and went on to found
Rome, were he later died as a martyr. <<<

And your point is? You see, Peter apparently appointed his successor in Rome before his death as well, so one cannot argue from that perspective.

And, inter alia, I do not denigrate the papacy, nor do I reject the concept of universal primacy. I merely take the pope at his word that the modalities of papal primacy are and must be open to discussion in order for the universal Church to arrive at a consensus on the issue, a necessary prerequisite for unity in the Holy Spirit.

In other words, I am a Byzantine, not a Roman Catholic, and I come at the issue of primacy from a Byzantine perspective--as is both natural and right.

John:

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Stuart is absolutely correct in his presentation, and so I will add nothing here except:

Did you read the quotes I posted from Cyprian and Chrysostom in the Pope St. Leo thread? Please respond to those.

Yours in Christ,
Theophilos

[This message has been edited by theophilos (edited 11-22-1999).]