I’ve been reading Eastern Orthodox apologetics recently and I came acorss something very surprising. I always assumed the interpretation of “on this rock I will build my Church” as Peter’s confession of Faith, rather than Peter himself was an exclusively protestant interpretation.
Apparently the Orthodox interpret it the same way, and have
Church Fathers to back them up:
Can someone explain this to me? Eastern Orthodox claim that alot of the claims of Papal Primacy and so on are from Papist Propagandists. It seems more convincing by the day. Don’t worry, I’m still remaining Catholic, but it seems like Catholic apologists of the past haven’t been so honest with their interpretations.
They could cite the Catechism too: “[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.” (
CCC 424)
The Church has always seen this as a both/and. Jesus built His Church upon Peter And his confession of faith. The Catechism says this too: “the gates of Hades will not prevail against [the Church]. … [Christ] thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death.” (
CCC 552)
These interpretations are not incompatible and thus we should not be surprised to see both of them appear among the Fathers and in Church documents. In fact they are closely connected. In the study of literature, a common thing to look for is synecdoche: referring to a whole by a part, or a part by a whole. Thus we sometimes refer to a car by referring to its wheels: “He thinks he’s so cool because of his new set of wheels.” (We mean his new car.) Similarly, saying that the Church is founded on Peter’s confession of faith is not incompatible with the statement that it is built on Peter himself, because the principle of synecdoche reveals that literature can refer to one thing by the things closely connected with it.
A final point I would like to make. Exodus 2:10 says, “And she called his name Moses [Mosheh in Hebrew]: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water [mashah in Hebrew].” Does anybody say, “Aha, look, Mosheh is different from mashah, so therefore it wasn’t Moses who was drawn out of the water, it was someone else!” Of course not. A slight difference in name doesn’t imply a disconnect between the two things being spoken of. On the contrary, the fact that two very similar words are used shows that a connection is being made.
In Matthew 16:18, if Jesus had wanted to make a disconnect between the confession of faith and Peter, He could have chosen different words than Petros and petra. He could have used lithos or psephos, which were other words for rocks, and he could have avoided naming Peter after a rock if he didn’t want us to think Peter was the rock. Jesus chose to use words that are similar in sound, and the obvious conclusion is that He wanted to imply a connection.
This is in keeping with the constant biblical tradition about the significance of names, which in Scripture are often given in connection with a play on words in Hebrew or Greek that tells us something about the person being named. Genesis 3:20, Gen. 4:25, Gen. 5:29, Gen. 11:9, etc. etc. etc. all throughout Scripture all use one word for the name and a similar word to give its meaning. Jesus is obviously continuing this when He says “You are Petros and on this petra I will build my Church.” (Or in Aramaic: “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church.”) The fact that it is in this famous biblical tradition is already proof that Jesus is giving Peter’s purpose at the same time as he gives him that name. The name means Rock, therefore Peter is the rock being spoken of (as well as his confession).
I hope that helps. Please let me know.
