www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology "Upon this rock."

It has been stated elsewhere that the passage from Matthew 16:15-19 means that Peter is the 'rock.' Yet we learn from those who have studied the Fathers that 17 state that the rock meant Peter, 44 state that it means Peter's confession, 8 meant the Apostles, and 16 wrote that it meant Christ. Even Blessed Augustine of the West changed his mind in "Retract., lib. i, cxxi" that it meant Peter's faith. The Fathers aren't so agreeable, yet Rome is very sure that it means Peter's person.

Now in Ephesians 2:19,20, the 'foundation' was based on the Apostles and Prophets. Notice how they show up on our iconostasis? This scripture passage from Ephesians refers us to Isaiah 18:16 and Revelation 21:14.

Isaiah's 'rejected cornerstone' is mentioned several times in the NT. We see it in Mt 21:42, Acts 4:11, Rom 9:33 and even 1 Peter 2:6,-8. A Catholic edition of the bible states in its footnote to Acts 4:11 that the "early Christians applied this term to Jesus."

Isn't a 'foundation' laid once and for all? Why would a foundation be replaced so many times if it was meant to be Peter and not Christ?

Who is the ROCK?
(1) St. Peter.
(2) St. Peter's Confession.
(3) The Apostles.
(4) Jesus Christ.
(5) None of the Above.

Do you think you have made your choice based on the Fathers?
(1) Yes.
(2) No.
(3) Maybe so.
(4) Who are the Fathers?


Elias


[This message has been edited by Elias (edited 05-24-2000).]

Slava Isusu Christu! The odds our in favor of the great East and Rome, one day, will be humble enough to admit their error. Then, a truly fruitful dialogue with the Orthodox "Not in Union with Rome" will produce that unity we, the Orthodox "in Union with Rome" long for with a pathos of the spirit that no Latin, not even the Holy Father, can understand. We are all children of the Great Church of Constantinople and when we forget that "we forget ourselves." (Am I living the "confession" of Peter this day?)

Christ is Risen!

Elias has presented an impressive poll indicating how some of the Fathers of the Church interpreted Mt.16:18. I would like to see the texts myself (within context) before I would make any kind of conclusion. There are some non-Catholic/Orthodox who can also make impressive lists if scriptural passages which seem to deny basic dogmas. Scripture is not its own interpreter -- it is the living teaching authority (magisterium) of the Church which interprets and proclaims. The texts of the Fathers do not stand alone, but also must be authentically interpreted and proclaimed by the magisterium of the Church. It is the magisterium of the Church which is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition.

Pado

Elias wrote:

"The Fathers aren't so agreeable, yet Rome is very sure that it means Peter's person."

Is it possible that Peter's profession of faith is identifiable with his person? In the same sense - or an even greater one - that the faith of Abraham is forever identified with this great Patriarch - "our father in faith"? Obviously, Abraham's faith had far greater implications than just his own personal edification and glorification. Abraham's faith made him the "father of many nations" through the blessing that his seed - the Messiah - would provide to the world.

In the same way, Simon's profession became identifiable with him and his role to be the "spiritual father" in faith to the whole Church.

Why say that? There can be little doubt that something far greater than merely a conversion or personal profession is going on here in this interaction between Jesus and Simon.

For one thing, Jesus renames him "Peter" (just as YHWH did to Abram by renaming him Abraham), something which does not occur at all to anyone else in any of the Gospels. (Knowing the signifigance of such a thing in OT times, it is clear that Jesus intended to do something new covenantally, especially since it was only the names of the Patriarchs - and Matriarchs, if you include Sarai - that God changed, signifying a new vocation in the history of salvation.)

Couple that with Jesus declaring Simon Peter - and him alone, "blessed" - the "blessing" being a traditional means of passing along the fatherly authority of stewardship in Jewish familes to the firstborn - and the granting of the keys, which has incredible signifigance from the perspective of the Old Testament, especially the Davidic covenant - there is much within this passage that can demonstrate that Jesus intended Simon Peter to be more than just an example by his profession of faith. Rather, Jesus intended for him to have a leadership role within the community of disciples which was not granted to the other apostles.

Just some thoughts...

Gordo, sfo

Infallibility and universal sovereignity are Latin concepts totally foreign to the Rabbinic Tradition. Even with the "power of the keys" no rabbi could or would claim exclusive authority in "proclaiming the word and will of G-d." Your papal analogy falls flat in the face of the facts.

[This message has been edited by Vasili (edited 05-25-2000).]

Padova,

You wrote: "The texts of the Fathers do not stand alone, but also must be authentically interpreted and proclaimed by the magisterium of the Church."

What is the Magesterium? Only what the Pope of Rome said? Yet in the early church when there were problems to deal with (appeals to Rome), the Pope would always call a council and not give a verdict alone - sola popa. Isn't the Ecumenical Councils, which gave us our Creed, the magesterium?

Again you wrote: "It is the magisterium of the Church which is the authentic interpreter of Scripture and Tradition."

It is interesting that Scripture and Tradition are separated into two nice categories. This doesn't take into account the number of gray areas in between; such as Feast Days (Mary's Nativity, her parents, Mary's Presentation into the Temple, the deaths of Peter and Paul, etc) which are Tradition in the Church but are based on non-canonical scriptures. Scripture or Tradition?

Assent to the Magesterium (teaching) is a neet way to divorce from the 'person' of the teacher (Pope). This leans more towards Peter's Confession more than his Person. We even know that several Popes were heretics and were condemned by their own Church. The Magesterium is also based on the Church Fathers! For the Magesterium doesn't stand alone either. But the Church Fathers are not so sure about assigning the meaning of the Rock to Peter's person alone. This can also be seen in the issue of Man being made in the Image and Likeness of God. It was the 'Likeness' which was not so certain. The same goes for the 'moment of consecration.' T'is interesting the Rome is always certain when the bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ in the past. Today, that certainty has deminished and the recognition that temporal concretization of divine activities is difficult to determine. Would Vatican I have happened in the first five centuries of the early Church? We also forget that Rome's Primacy was never a dogmatic issue until Rome's infamous Vatican I. Rome's role or primacy was always an issue in the Canons of the Church. Rome dogmatized a canon. The Apostles argued who would sit at Jesus' side in the Kingdom. They were rebuked; the first will be last and the last will be first. Rome solved this continuing argument once and for all - they opted to being LAST by being first.


Elias

"Infallibility and universal sovereignity are Latin concepts totally foreign to the Rabbinic Tradition."

True, but the Rabbis reject both as they apply to Christ, and we accept them, do we not? Bear in mind, we are in the Messianic age now, and just as the covenant with Adam was universal in it's "jurisdiction, so too now the covenant of the New Adam is also universal (catholic). Simon Peter's infallibility and universal jurisdiction are not his own - rather, he participates in the infallibility and universal jurisdiction of the Messiah. Recall Jesus' warning to his apostles not to accept the title "Rabbi". Why? Because they have one Teacher, who is also the living Torah. Any teaching they would do, was merely an extension and participation in his Messianic teaching authority. ("He who hears you, hears me...")

So, as far as I can tell, my point still stands.

Peace,

Gordo, sfo



[This message has been edited by Dozier (edited 05-25-2000).]

Dozier,
Could you show us where it is stated that Simon Peter is blessed ALONE? Is this not the Latin mindset? Demonstrate for us how the Keys ALONE belong to St. Peter? How do you know about the intentions of our Lord in regards to leadership? How on earth do you know for certain that leadership roles were not granted to the other Holy Apostles? How is this reconciliable to Acts 15 when St. James was the leader over the Jerusalem Church and had the very same Keys as St. Peter? That Council was finalized by St. James. Are you going to debate and belittle this historical fact? What about St. Paul when he withstood St. Peter to his face regarding a controversially issue? Did not St. Paul have Keys as well? I just cannot comprehend this Latin mindset were St. Peter and Rome are an exclusion copyright for Latin believers. Everything is done ALONE from being blessed(in the words of Dozier), Keys, Leadership, Church, etc. "Sola Petros" is a totally foreign teaching found in Rome, Catholicism and within the mindset of Latins. In regards, to Peter's confession of Christ and/or his person, both are essential. A Latin stressing more on the person of Peter or his confession to prove Sola Petros is quite a shame and a slap in the face of Holy Treadition. The person and confession should not be divorced but with the Latins these things are possible. As we read in the New Testament, St. Peter(person) did divorce his confession of Christ on the issue of Jewish/Gentile relations and was rebuked by St. Paul. St. Peter was corrected and the Council of Jerusalem passed the final verdict under St. James. St. Peter was again restored with his Confession in a conciliar nature unlike the Papal monarchial forms that have been exhibited throughout the centuries. Just like us fallible human beings we sometimes divorce by forgetting the Confession of Christ in our persons or actions and words. The Confession in Christ must reflect our words and actions unlike what Peter said in his denial of Christ 3 times and sitting with the Jews at the expense of the Gentiles. Once we realize that our words and actions are in error and repent as St. Peter did then we can continue our journey into Christ. This is the story of theosis. It's wonderful that St. Peter was the first to make the Confession of our Lord BUT he was not the ONLY ONE. It's wonderful that St. Peter is the first person to be mentioned to receive the Keys from Christ BUT he was not the ONLY ONE. Loneliness is the Roman Catholic Church experience in doing and saying things ALONE. She tends to define everything ALONE and on her on terms. Papal Monarchy is a foreign and unholy teaching that ignores or belittles Apostolic teachings but reinforces Papal teachings. Romans Catholics champion St. Peter on their shoulders with St. Paul in second place and the rest of the Apostles coming in third. To make the Confession of Christ and believe Sola Petros is ingenuine and a form of spiritual malnourishment. I do believe Elias has done a good job by bringing this topic to the discussion table and revealing the inconsistencies that support SOLA PETROS.

Please examine the following page on the
Papacy which has plenty of information to
answer your charges against the Papacy. http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM
"I Mighty Fortress is our God"-Martin Luther
LOLOL

Starting with this first tract:
The Papacy and Infallibility: Keys of the Kingdom

Introduction, Definitions, and Explanation

The ecumenical First Vatican Council, in 1870, defined once and for all the dogma of papal infallibility as follows:

We teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is,
when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he
defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, is, by the divine assistance promised to
him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be
endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that, therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of
themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, irreformable. (1)

The charge is often made that the Catholic Church "invents" dogmas late in the game, which were not present in earlier
centuries. The papacy, and papal infallibility, have indeed been in existence from the very earliest days of the Church, starting
with the Apostle Peter, and what he and other Christians believed about his leadership and jurisdiction. (2) As is to be
expected, however, both the office of the pope, and the notion of papal infallibility did undergo much development through the
centuries.

In order to illustrate how the definition of 1870 drew on centuries of reflection and practice, we will cite St. Francis de Sales'
teaching from around 1596:

When he teaches the whole Church as shepherd, in general matters of faith and morals, then there is nothing but doctrine
and truth. And in fact everything a king says is not a law or an edict, but that only which a king says as king and as a
legislator. So everything the Pope says is not canon law or of legal obligation; he must mean to define and to lay down
the law for the sheep, and he must keep the due order and form .

We must not think that in everything and everywhere his judgment is infallible, but then only when he gives judgment on a
matter of faith in questions necessary to the whole Church; for in particular cases which depend on human fact he can
err, there is no doubt, though it is not for us to control him in these cases save with all reverence, submission, and
discretion. Theologians have said, in a word, that he can err in questions of fact, not in questions of right; that he can err
extra cathedram, outside the chair of Peter. that is, as a private individual, by writings and bad example.

But he cannot err when he is in cathedra, that is, when he intends to make an instruction and decree for the guidance of
the whole Church, when he means to confirm his brethren as supreme pastor, and to conduct them into the pastures of
the faith. For then it is not so much man who determines, resolves, and defines as it is the Blessed Holy Spirit by man,
which Spirit, according to the promise made by Our Lord to the Apostles, teaches all truth to the Church. (3)

Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914), a convert to Catholicism, whose father, Edward W. Benson (1829-1896), had been the
Archbishop of Canterbury, the highest office in Anglicanism, wrote concerning the development of the papacy:

It was not, then, until the head had been fully established as supreme over the body that men had eyes to see how it had
been so ordained and indicated from the beginning. After it had come to pass it was seen to have been inevitable. All this
is paralleled, of course, by the ordinary course of affairs. Laws of nature, as well as laws of grace, act quite apart from
man's perception or appreciation of them; and it is not until the law is recognized that its significance and inevitability, its
illustrations and effects, are intelligibly recognized either. (4)

Likewise, John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his masterpiece Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (1845), offers
similar analysis:

Whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension
of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks
about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal
supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the
part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . . .

Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated . . . while persecutions lasted. If the
Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The
Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined . . . All began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its
tyrannous oppression of the Church . . .

Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in
the early history of the Church to contradict it. . .

Doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and . . . therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to
interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later. (5)

James Cardinal Gibbons, in his best-selling book of Catholic apologetics, The Faith of Our Fathers (1917), eloquently
defended papal infallibility against many of the common objections of Protestants and other non-Catholics:

You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former
times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of
prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God's revelation, of which the Popes are merely the
custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible
guardian and interpreter? For, surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who
preserves it from error . . .

Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of
the Bible is correct or you are not.

If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal
infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. You make every man his own Pope.

If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible . . . then, I ask, of what use to you
is the objective infallibility of the Bible without an infallible interpreter? (6)

Although the pope is supreme Head of the Church and preeminent in authority, nevertheless, he acts in concert with both the
college of bishops (especially when meeting in an ecumenical Council, such as Trent or Vatican II), (7) and the "sense of the
faithful" (or, sensus fidelium). (8) It is this united jurisdiction of bishops and pope (distantly analogous to the U.S. Congress
and President, with the Supreme Court similar to Catholic Canon Law), which is the distinctive mark of Catholic ecclesiology,
(9) as opposed to Eastern Orthodoxy, which accepts bishops but acknowledges no pope, and Protestantism, which does not
formally recognize the papacy, and many denominations of which (perhaps the majority) lack bishops. Catholics claim that this
arrangement is mirrored in the biblical relationship of St. Peter and the other original disciples, and that it is required by the
demands of apostolic succession, which is itself suggested in the Bible. (10)

Bishop Vincent Gasser, in his famous defense of papal infallibility (the Relatio) at the First Vatican Council, discussed the
aspects of collegiality and community:

We do defend the infallibility of the person of the Roman Pontiff, not as an individual person but as the person of the
Roman Pontiff or a public person, that is, as head of the Church in his relation to the Church Universal . . .

We do not exclude the cooperation of the Church because the infallibility of the Roman Pontiff does not come to him in
the manner of inspiration or of revelation but through a divine assistance. Therefore, the Pope, by reason of his office and
the gravity of the matter, is held to use the means suitable for properly discerning and aptly enunciating the truth. These
means are councils, or the advice of the bishops, cardinals, theologians, etc. Indeed the means are diverse according to
the diversity of situations, and we should piously believe that, in the divine assistance promised to Peter and his
successors by Christ, there is simultaneously contained a promise about the means which are necessary and suitable to
make an infallible pontifical judgment.

Finally we do not separate the Pope, even minimally, from the consent of the Church, as long as that consent is not laid
down as a condition which is either antecedent or consequent. We are not able to separate the Pope from the consent of
the Church because this consent is never able to be lacking to him. Indeed, since we believe that the Pope is infallible
through the divine assistance, by that very fact we also believe that the assent of the Church will not be lacking to his
definitions since it is not able to happen that the body of bishops be separated from its head, and since the Church
universal is not able to fail. (11)

Nevertheless, the pope is ultimately supreme, even over ecumenical Councils, which he ratifies in all particulars (a power which
might be compared in part to the veto of the American President). The famous English convert and apologist Ronald Knox
(1888-1957) explains:

[It is a] quite unworkable idea that the authority of the Pope depends on the authority of the Council. There is no way of
deciding which councils were ecumenical councils except by saying that those councils were ecumenical which had their
decisions ratified by the Pope. Now, either that ratification is infallible of itself, or else you will immediately have to
summon a fresh ecumenical council to find out whether the Pope's ratification was infallible or not, and so on ad
infinitum. You can't keep on going round and round in a vicious circle; in the long run the last word of decision must lie
with one man, and that man is obviously the Pope. In the last resort the Pope must be the umpire, must have the casting
vote. If therefore there is to be any infallibility in the Church, that infallibility must reside in the Pope, even when he
speaks in his own name, without summoning a council to fortify his decision. (12)

Contrary to common assumptions, the doctrine of the papacy is well-grounded in Scripture, and the institution is present in
increasingly-developing stages throughout the history of the Church. Moreover, the constant, remarkable primacy of Rome in
the history of Christianity is equally undeniable. Because the very existence of this historical institution (in the early Church) is
so often denied (for example, many arbitrarily maintain that Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century was the first pope, and
others claim the same for Gregory the Great in the sixth), more attention than usual will be paid to the actual history of the
papacy and the theological justifications historically put forth in defense of it.

Scriptural Evidence for the Papacy and the Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter

St. Peter as the Rock (Matthew 16:18)

Matthew 16:18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death
shall not prevail against it.

Catholics contend that the "rock" is Peter himself, not his faith, or Jesus (although arguably his faith is assumed by Christ in
naming Peter "rock" in the first place). This interpretation is found in the Church Fathers at least as early as Tertullian (d.c.230).
The next verse (16:19) is in the singular, which supports this view, which is in fact the consensus of the majority of biblical
commentators today, according to the article on Peter in the Encyclopedia Britannica (1985 edition). (13)

It has often been argued to the contrary that Jesus called Peter petros (literally, "stone"), not petra (the word for "rock" in the
passage), so that the "rock" wasn't Peter, but this is simply explained by the necessity for a proper male name in Greek to be in
the masculine gender. In Aramaic, however (the language Jesus spoke), the name kepha would have been used for both "rock"
and "Peter." Matthew could just as easily have used another Greek word for "stone," lithos, in contrast to "rock," but this
would have distorted the unmistakable word-play of the passage, which is the whole point!

Many prominent Protestant scholars and exegetes have agreed that Peter is the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, including Alford,
Broadus, Keil, Kittel, Cullmann (14), Albright (15), Robert McAfee Brown (16), and more recently, respected evangelical
commentators R.T. France (17) and D.A. Carson. (18) Also, popular one-volume Protestant Bible commentaries such as
Peake's Commentary (19), New Bible Commentary (20) and numerous others concur. (21) Both Carson and France
surprisingly assert that only Protestant overreaction to Catholic Petrine and papal claims have brought about the denial that
Peter himself is the "rock."

The great Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent was among those who took the traditional view, in his standard reference
work Word Studies in the New Testament (1887):

The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter
himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The
emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ
appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great
foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members
of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living
stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones . . .

Equally untenable is the explanation which refers petra to Simon's confession. Both the play upon the words and the
natural reading of the passage are against it, and besides, it does not conform to the fact, since the church is built, not on
confessions, but on confessors - living men . . . . . .

The reference to Simon himself is confirmed by the actual relation of Peter to the early church . . . See Acts 1:15;
2:14,37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15,29; 9:34,40; 10:25-6; Galatians 1:18. (22)

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622), a leader of the Catholic Reformation, draws out the implications of this passage for the
papacy:

Our Lord then, who is comparing his Church to a building, when he says that he will build it on St. Peter, shows that St.
Peter will be its foundation-stone . . . When he makes St. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of this
family.

By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the
building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who
takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell can in no wise prevail against the Church,
they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely
overturning the whole edifice . . .

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of his Master, but is only
a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of this hierarchy besides Our Lord but rather in Our Lord: as we
call him most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . St. Peter is foundation, not founder, of the
whole Church; foundation but founded on another foundation, which is Our Lord . . . in fine, administrator and not lord,
and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments . . . So, although he is
the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Ephesians 4:11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so
great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John 10:11; Ezekiel 34:23). (23)

G.K. Chesterton (1874-1936), the English literary giant, made a marvelously insightful comment concerning Christ's selection
of Peter as the "rock":

When Christ at a symbolic moment was establishing His great society, he chose for its cornerstone neither the brilliant
Paul nor the mystic John, but a shuffler, a snob, a coward - in a word, a man. And upon this rock he has built His
Church, and the gates of Hell have not prevailed against it. All the empires and the kingdoms have failed, because of this
inherent and continual weakness, that they were founded by strong men and upon strong men. But this one thing, the
historic Christian Church, was founded on a weak man, and for that reason it is indestructible. For no chain is stronger
than its weakest link. (24)

The Keys of the Kingdom (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . .

Isaiah 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the
inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of
David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and
no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The power of the "keys," in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a
broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments
and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name "rock," this privilege was bestowed only upon St.
Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God's "vice-regent," so to speak. (25) In the Old Testament, a
steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The
steward was also called a "governor" in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of "prime
minister."

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as "steward" are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus
1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the
position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has
something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). (26) He applies the same
language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of
powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The "opening" and "shutting" (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient
kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister's prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace,
and access to the king. In Isaiah's time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by
Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh's "vizier," who was second in command after the
Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8). (27)

The symbol of keys always represented authority in the Middle East. This standpoint comes down to us in our own culture
when we observe mayors giving an honored visitor the "key to the city." The reputable Commentary on the Whole Bible
(1864), by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, a Protestant work, expounds Isaiah 22:15,22 as follows:

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles27:33, the king's
counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for
sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man
Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the
government will be upon his shoulder]. (28)

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the
phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so
since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter.

The Power to Bind and Loose (Matthew 16:19)

Matthew 16:19 . . . Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven.

Binding and loosing were technical rabbinical terms meaning, respectively, to forbid and permit, with regard to interpretations
of Jewish Law. In secondary usage, they also could mean condemn and acquit. This power is also given to the Apostles in
Matthew 18:17-18, where it apparently refers particularly to discipline and excommunication in local jurisdictions (whereas
Peter's commission seems to apply to the universal Church). In John 20:23 it is also granted to the Apostles (in a different
terminology, which suggests the power to impose penance and grant indulgences and absolution). Generally speaking, binding
and loosing usually meant the prerogative to formulate Christian doctrine and to require allegiance to it, as well as to condemn
heresies which were opposed to the true doctrine (Jude 3). (29) Marvin Vincent writes:

No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented
the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred, . . . in their reality, to
his apostles; the first, here, to Peter, as their representative, the second, after his resurrection, to the church (John 20:23)
. . . (30)

St. Peter Commanded to Feed My Sheep (John 21:15-17)

John 21:15-17 . . . Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to
him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him,
"Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him,
"Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved
because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you
know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."

Revelation 7:17 For the Lamb in the midst of the throne will be their shepherd, and he will guide them to springs
of living water . .

The Greek word for "tend" in 21:16 is poimaino, which is applied to Jesus Christ in Revelation 7:17 above, and also in
Matthew 2:6, and Revelation 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2 (which seems to be a
passage perhaps reminiscent in St. Peter's mind of the Lord's charge to him). Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority
is being given to Peter, which includes, according to the Protestant Greek scholar W.E. Vine, "discipline, authority, restoration,
material assistance of individuals." (31)

The commission of Christ to Peter, then, to tend my sheep, while not exclusive to Peter in the sense that no one else (besides
Christ) exercises this function (St. Peter himself says as much in 1 Peter 5:2), nevertheless is supremely unique and important
insofar as no other individual disciple is likewise instructed by our Lord - and in such momentous terms (considering all of the
biblical data).

Peter's ministry to the Church is always universal; his jurisdiction knows no bounds, and the language that Christ Himself applies
to him is strikingly sublime and profound. For to no one else was it granted the keys of the kingdom of heaven. No one else
was renamed "Rock," and proclaimed by Jesus to be the foundation upon which He would build His Church. And although the
power to bind and loose was given to the disciples as a whole in Matthew 18:18, nevertheless, Peter is the only individual to
be given this power by Christ. In other words, St. Peter has extraordinary privileges unique to himself, and in cases where they
are not exclusive they are obviously applied to him in a preeminent sense.

We find then, that the scriptural relation between Christ, Peter, and the disciples (by extension, bishops and priests), is precisely
that found in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church, where the pope, more than just the "foremost among equals," as
the Orthodox and some Lutherans and Anglicans hold, is the supreme shepherd and leader of the Church, yet not in such a
fashion as to exclude Christ as the Head or the Cardinals and bishops (and even laymen) as fellow members of the Body in
Christ acting in organic harmony. Always, it is the pope and the Cardinals, the pope and the Council, the pope acting with due
consideration of the faithful lay members of the Church, but the pope is supreme.

It is simply not necessary to dichotomize the relationship between the pope and lesser clergy. With regard to the papacy, only
Catholicism does justice to both the scriptural data and the course of the early Church in the formative years of its development.
One need not fall into the trap of denying the pope's existence (and thereby doing violence to the Petrine texts as well), nor of
caricaturing the Catholic Church's doctrine of the papacy as strictly a "top-down," "autocratic," "monarchical" conception of
Church government. In any event, the abundant Petrine evidence in the Bible must be dealt with in an open and consistent
manner, whatever position one holds.

St. Peter Charged to Strengthen Your Brethren (Luke 22:31-32)

Luke 22:31-32 Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have
prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

The Jesuit apologist Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales explain how this charge to St. Peter suggests the need for an
ongoing, infallible papacy:

In this passage there is question of infallibility. For infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient
is shielded from all error against faith. But - a) this is clearly expressed in the words, that thy faith fail not; b) it is
implied in the command to confirm his brethren; c) it is supposed in the very failure of Satan's attempts to destroy the
Church, which is personified in the Apostles, and which depends essentially upon faith . . .

The temptation is common, but the prayer was offered for Peter alone; not because Our Lord was less solicitous for the
rest of the Apostles, says Bossuet, but because by strengthening the head He wished to prevent the rest from staggering.
Now this duty of confirming his brethren was to last as long as the Church; and Peter, accordingly, abides always in his
successors . . . Strange, indeed, would it be to suppose that the doctrinal infallibility of the Head of the Church should
cease just when the need becomes greater and more urgent. Christ would in this supposition have rendered His first vicar
infallible . . . and denied this divine assistance to all the rest of His vicars on earth, when in their times the dangers were to
be greater . . . If this consequence be absurd, our position is unassailable. (32)

He prays for St. Peter as for the confirmer and support of the others; and what is this but to declare him head of the others?
Truly one could not give St. Peter the command to confirm the Apostles without charging him to have care of them . . . Is this
not to again call him foundation of the Church? If he supports, secures,

>>>Please examine the following page on the
Papacy which has plenty of information to
answer your charges against the Papacy.<<<

Such prooftexting-style apologetics may work on Protestants, but Eastern Christians as a whole find them intellectually and spiritually unsatisfying. A better approach is one which goes back to basics, and asks, "How did the Church understand primacy in the first millennium, and how did the Church behave in regard to the primacy of the Church of Rome?" Only by following such a path can we arrive at the truth regarding the development of the papal perogatives, and it may not be a pleasant truth for many on both sides. Nonetheless, insofar as the Church is founded on truth, it cannot be afraid of objective historical inquiry, even into such matters as this.

>What is the Magesterium? Only what the Pope of Rome said? Yet in the early church when there were problems to deal with (appeals to Rome), the Pope would always call a council and not give a verdict alone - sola popa. Isn't the Ecumenical Councils, which gave us our Creed, the magesterium?>

Can you name at leat one of the first Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church that was called for by a Roman Pope? Name at least one of the councils which were presided over by a pope, where a pope was in attendance, or that was held in Rome.

Robert S.,

Thank you for your excellent response to my posts. I want to take some time to reflect on what you said, and will come back with a response - although, I should say up front that I am not arguing for Sola Petros, nor have I ever seen any official Catholic teaching do so.

Your point about the Council of Jerusalem and Peter's "divorce" of faith and his "person" is intriguing, although even before that there is also his betrayal of Christ. No one, of course, has ever argued that Peter was impeccable.

Anyway, I'll have to chew on what you've said and get back to you.

Peace,

Gordo, sfo

Jeff Chen,
When I read the your post and clicked over to the web link to see where you were getting your source from I was not surprised. I was reminded of myself of how I had once incorporated Christian heresies from a free subscription magazine over ten years ago. You are doing exactly the same thing. You are repeating somebody elses polemical works rather than your own. You are basically afriad, as I was once, to state
or to confess ignorance. I would encourage you to ask and seek questions rather than post the replies of polemicists. The path your are on is not conducive to understanding Eastern Christianity. I can see right through your(not really your own original posts) post that you do not have an adequate understanding about this topic. Take the time to study the matters before you become all defensive for nothing by posting the rhetorics of others. Stuartk is correct about what he stated in his post. You need to get back to basics. This means "boot camp" before you can go to "war". Although I am not and will never advocate violence or hate the issue stated by Elias is a very serious one which keeps the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Church apart. For very good reasons I may add from the Orthodox perspective. I can only suggest to you to pray and fast about what is stated here in this topic in order to have a grasp of the truths. Know the truth and it will set you free. It will deliver you from your fears and anxieties. Trust in the truth. Confess Christ not only by your lips but in your person as shown by the Apostles. The lips ALONE cannot work without the person and the person with lips ALONE cannot work. Confessing Christ but writing un-Christianly enlarges the gap between the East and the West. Once you can acknowledge St. Peter and the Apostles in union with their Confession of Christ the Church is Infallible. However, when a polemicist decides to turn St. Peter into an infallible being or an impecable being, the Saint has been denied theosis. In other words, St. Peter had bypassed any spiritual struggle within himself to follow Christ. The reality as we know it is that St. Peter and all of the Apostles struggled and died a Christian ending. St. Peter being "first amongst equals" was not superior/domineering over his brothers in Christ. The Apostles or St. Peter for that matter never viewed themselves as infallible nor impeccable. It was only late in Christian history that polemicists began making unfounded claims about the role of St. Peter to protect the dignity and honor of Rome. Ex cathedra in Latin means "from the chair" and infallibility does not begin sitting in one. Infallibility is Christ in communion with His One, Holy ,Catholic and APostolic Church. Infallibility is a divine attribute not bestowed upon man or beast regardless of the strive towards perfection in theosis. We live in the state of sin until we die and always asking forgiveness. An infallible being as God calls out to us the fallible. He even called out to the Apostles and told them to follow Him. They certainly were not individually infallible ALONE. Did not St. Peter err when he denied Christ or sat with the Jews at the demise of the Gentiles? This was about faith and morals was it not? St. Peter eventually repented and was restored within the community of the Apostolic Church. These are growing spiritual pains all of us must endure if we are to follow Christ. We must die to sin as Christ and the Apostles had to do in order to be resurrected. Our fallen state of affairs causes us to abandon the Confession of Christ as the Rock for our own selfishness or self-centeredness. Can we not learn from St. Peter's mistakes and become once again restored in our true humanity in the eyes of God?

Robert,

You wrote: "Our fallen state of affairs causes us to abandon the Confession of Christ as the Rock for our own selfishness or self-centeredness. Can we not learn from St. Peter's mistakes and become once again restored in our true humanity in the eyes of God?"


There is hope. Jesus did not give up on Peter. After the triple denial, Jesus issued the triple command to "Feed my sheep." Despite weakness there is a chance to do the will of God.

There is much more to come on this topic. It is the prime issue which divides us Catholics and Orthodox. I have learned a lot and now have a better understanding why the Orthodox cringe when Roman Catholics begin quoting from their doctrine of 'sola Popa' or 'sola Roma.' Sorry if I have ever offended you in past posts. If Latinized Uniates were a possibility/reality in the past; then Orthodox Uniates are a possibility in the future. To quote one Byzantine Catholic bishop, "Our mission as Eastern Catholics is to disappear." Give us a chance to wean from our past errors. Not only is our return to Holy Orthodoxy a process, as opposed to an event, but even Rome is slowly ebbing in this direction. The problem is the many contemporary Roman Catholic 'apologists' who ignore the primacy of love and charity. I have met many RC who never - NEVER - heard of the Eastern Churches (to hell with their RCIA!) and attended a very Byzantine Liturgy and walked away like angels floating on clouds. They end up having a very different attitude of their own church - positive, of course - and appreciate the 'catholicity' of the MORE universal church. Most of the polemical issues of the past don't make sense to them. The wonder of it all makes them love the church even more. So .... when in the past we had RC deny our existence and rightful expression of the Truths, today we have many RC who want to 'feed' the Eastern Church and see it thrive. Our Eastern Catholic Church has a good number of RC priests and deacons who service us where we can't. Most of them are more Orthodox than the Patriarch of Constantinople!

Anyways, I plan to continue this topic. It demands more coverage because it is the ONLY issue really dividing us.


Peace,
Elias

Al-Masseeh Gam! Haqqin Gam!

Dear Elias,
I couldn't agree ever more with your post because it touches the heart of the matter. We live in a post-modern, secular if not heretical culture that tends to infect many with spiritual poison. I am survivor by God's mercy to be where I am at and to believe in the Apostolic Church in Christ. I didn't know war was being waged upon me until I entered the Orthodox Church. Over ten years ago I didn't know what to call myself. Therefore I adopted Agnosticism even though I was baptized Orthodox and received a Roman Catholic education. At that time I was starving for the truth and began incorporating watered-down heretical Christian heresies. I even had picked up anti-Catholic tracts which I see as regretable! Today all of the past heresies I believed are buried. You are so right about many people especially Roman Catholics never hearing about Orthodoxy. My mother-in-law, a Roman Catholic, believed my Church to be a runaway heresy! She didn't want me to marry my wife in the Orthodox Church but in their church. I asked my bishop if we could have the wedding ceremony in their church in order to keep them happy but he said no. Then my mother-in-law ended up calling my bishop a heretic. I could have easily gotten up from seat and walked away but I fought myself from reacting to what they did not know. When they asked me if my Church would be administering the Eucharist they became hostile when I said no. However, I thank God after a year of struggling with my wife's family about marrying in the Orthodox Church they finally have accepted me for who I am. Once they saw the beauty and splendour of my Church and heard and witnessed the marriage they never said a negative word about my faith and Church. Fear is a really factor with those who know nothing and afriad to ask. I did a ton of asking once I conquered my fears and myself. You are right Elias there is hope. Christ did not give up on St. Peter and the Apostles. The Apostles did not do things ALONE. They worked together in synergy and in a conciliar manner. The word 'Sola Petros' is not an official Roman Catholic teaching but it is unofficial and unpronounced. When I see polemics that distort the truth about the Holy Apostles especially about St. Peter I cringe as if someone was scratching a chalk board with their fingernails. I pray to see more of an openness amongst Christians towards Orthodoxy instead of the above-posted polemics. "Let us pray to the Lord. Lord have mercy."

Yours in Christ,
Robert Sweiss