Concerning this passage St. John Chrysostom said, “What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas. Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession.”
The Rock upon which the Church is built is the faith in Christ confessed by St. Peter,** not the person of Peter himself.**
One would think that the councils that defined orthodox Christianity considered it important that the Church be built on St. Peter, there would have been at least one reference to this text at one of the councils that reflect the Roman Catholic interpretation. There is no reference at all to this text at any of the 7 Ecumenical Councils.
Fr. John
(Emphasis mine)
Notice Fr. John, that St. John Chrysostom did not say what you said; he only affirmed the positive; ‘on the faith of his confession.’ I made this point in another conversation with you, though granted, you have had interactions on many threads with many posters.
Anyway, the Catechism of the Catholic Church itself says:
“424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.
On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.” (
Par. 424) (Emphasis mine)
Yet elsewhere:
“881
The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.” (
Par. 881) (Emphasis mine)
That is because these two interpretations are complimentary, so long as one doesn’t exclude St. Peter from being the “rock” as you have done. Notice in your citation of St. John Chrysostom, he didn’t do this. In other writings, St. John refers to St. Peter as “’…the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation…’ " (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])” or “’…the foundation of the Church’ (Hom 3 in Matt 5, vol VII, 38[42])”
(Source:
philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm)
Even in the same Homily you cited Fr. John, St. John Chrysostom later says:
“‘Do you see how He Himself leads Peter to a high consideration of Himself, and reveals Himself and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises? For what is proper to God alone, that is, to forgive sins, and to make the Church in so great an onset of waves, and
to cause a fisherman to be stronger than any rock, when the whole world wars against him…’” (Homily 54) (
Ibid.)
As Dom John Chapman said, regarding the whole series of passages he gives from Homily 54: “I think this passage alone would have made it clear that the Rock is Peter, in St. Chrysostom’s view, as well as, and because of, the firmness of his confession.** He has no idea of the two notions, ‘Peter is the Rock’ and ‘his faith is the Rock’ being mutually exclusive, as, in fact, they are not.** It is equally clear that the promise is understood as granting him an ecumenical jurisdiction in a way which is not given to the other apostles.” (
Ibid.) (Emphasis mine).
If you wish, 