Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Peter the Rock

[truthseeker32]

Others have already voiced things similar to what I have to say, but I do want to reiterate that affirming that St. Peter as the rock upon which Christ founds the Church is not a problem for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Catholic apologists too often assume that once this is established their work is done, but they often miss a step: demonstrating that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. The problem, though, is that several of the Church Fathers seemed to believe that all bishops sit in the Chair of Peter.

 

[Wesrock]

We don’t need to disagree regarding Peter as an archetype of the Bishop and all Bishops sharing that authority in some sense.

 

[prodromos]

We don’t need to disagree regarding Peter as an archetype of the Bishop and all Bishops sharing that authority in some sense.

“Some sense”?
Just how vague can you get?

 

[susanlo]

Various early Christians identified the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 as either Peter himself or the faith confessed by Peter. In support of the identification of the rock as Peter himself, Jimmy Akin, the Director of Evangelization at Catholic Answers, in his book, The Fathers Know Best, quotes, among others, Tertullian of Carthage, Origen of Alexandria, St Cyprian of Carthage, Firmilian of Caesarea, the Letter of Clement to James, the Clementine Homilies, St Optatus of Milevis, St Ambrose of Milan, St Jerome, St Augustine of Hippo, the Council of Ephesus, St Sechnal of Ireland, Pope St Leo I, and the Council of Chalcedon.

I agree that many of the early Christian writings reveal varied interpretations of what “rock” the church is built on. Some identify the rock as Jesus Christ, the confession of faith in Christ, and some identify Peter as the rock. Most of the writings I am aware of that identify Peter as the rock state that Peter is the figure for the whole church. I have not seen any early writings that identify Peter as the Rock and that this is a position that has successors that are exclusively the bishops of Rome.

If I remember correctly, St Augustine of Hippo gave the rock both interpretations.

St. Augustine clarified his understanding of the issue late in his life when he wrote The Retractions.

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: ‘At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.’ But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.”
books.google.com/books?id=DikZ4GEmgUIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=augustine,+the+retractions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihwvf51p_QAhWj5oMKHbhzD8kQ6AEIGzAA#v=snippet&q='Thou%20art%20Peter%2C%20and%20upon%20this%20rock%20I%20will%20build%20my%20Church&f=false

This is a lengthy compilation of quotes about Matthew 16:18 from writings for the first 800 years: christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

 

[Duane1966]

Except there are a number of Latin Fathers even who say the exact opposite. This has been hashed out in a number of previous threads here where I showed this in detail and via Latin, etc. Since this topic comes up so often, I wound up simply creating a blog where I store my past arguments, evidence, and translations. In times past, I’ve been accused of self-aggrandizement, or even evangelization, etc. for posting links to my own blog. And if this was the apologetics section of the forum, I would agree with that assessment. However, since we are in Non-Catholics section, I assume that this matter is up for discussion for both Catholics and Non-Catholics, which would obviously include us Orthodox. Therefore, I will post the links because this is a very interesting topic.

With that long intro and caveat, I’ll go ahead and lay my cards on the table with the upmost respect for my Catholic friends here. I freely admit that these are somewhat polemical, but I ask that we just stick to the direct evidence (quotes of the Fathers) that I present. I could tailor the evidence all over again for this thread in particular, but that would require an exorbitant amount of time considering the amount of evidence I have amassed that contradicts your position. If there is any dispute with any of the evidence presented, then please quote it in a quote box.

Is Peter the Rock?: The Opinion of the Latin Fathers

Peter and the Keys: An Addendum to the Rock

I hope that I am not presumptive in answering the question. If so, my apologies. In theory, there is nothing objectionable in the idea of a universal jurisdiction if it was collegially established via council or something along those lines. Whether or not we would want to establish that is another story entirely. What we object to is the idea that the universal office and jurisdiction was divinely established and therefore a theological necessity.

Actually, many of your passages in your link actually strengthen the Catholic argument. I would be happy to discuss every one of them with you in private messaging, if you are so disposed.

You do realize the Hilary of Poiters passage says that the Apostles were rewarded with keys because of Peter?

Your passages do not address the Catholic argument of universal jurisdiction. Did Christ limit the powers He gave Peter? In matters of Church governance, can Peter, and his successors exercise alone (Mt. 16), what the others can do collectively with Peter (Mt.18)? There is no doubt that Peter receives the power to bind and loose by himself in Mt. 16. It is my understanding the binding and loosing in Mt.18, in the Greek, is not an individual you, but a collective you. This understanding seems to be borne out by Chrysostom, when he says:

"Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. He did not say: 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. **And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively.** [3] But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy [Greek] then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them [Benedictine text has different Greek here]; for to him Christ had said: 'And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren'." (Oxford, page 42, Migne, 37[26])

Thus, if we prefer the Benedictine text, we have a rhetorical question with its answer: “Could Peter not have appointed Matthias himself? Of course he could.” If we prefer the short text, we have a plain statement, “And yet he had the same power to appoint as they all collectively.”

Is Luke 12:35-48 a message to, and a warning to the successors of Peter?

 

[Duane1966]

and that this is a position that has successors that are exclusively the bishops of Rome.

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper,** by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.** That church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers** to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source"** (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

**How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. **(Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the **blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. **(Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

 

[prodromos]

Let the quote mines begin! (again)

 

[prodromos]

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the **blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. **(Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Im sure you are able to provide for us the canons and definitions of the holy synods referred to in the above quote?

 

[Duane1966]

Im sure you are able to provide for us the canons and definitions of the holy synods referred to in the above quote?

Why? She asked for early writings. This I have provided. Are you saying he did not write what I posted? Or are you saying that he was mistaken in what he wrote? The latter is of no consequence. He obviously felt the synods and God did give the authority to Rome. Can you prove that he did not believe what he wrote?

But since you ask, he could be referring to:

Canon VI of Nicaea, the definition of which is under dispute, but he seems to hold the Latin view of it.

Canon IV of Sardica

The Decree of Damasus following the Synod of Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon: " Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, **‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, **which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451])

Now I am positive none of this will persuade you.

 

[BobCatholic]

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.

And he didn’t use either of those words because those are Greek words.

Matthew was written in Aramaic, he used the word Kepha (rock) for both.

You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church…

There was no “using two different words” idea. Some church fathers had only the Greek text in front of them and not the original Aramaic.

 

[peter26]

And he didn’t use either of those words because those are Greek words.

Matthew was written in Aramaic, he used the word Kepha (rock) for both.

You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church…

There was no “using two different words” idea. Some church fathers had only the Greek text in front of them and not the original Aramaic.

But as Greek was the original language the New Testament was written in, surely the apostles writing it would have been preserved from making an error that could later lead to confusion? And Matthew would after all have been present at Peter’s confession of faith?

 

[Duane1966]

But as Greek was the original language the New Testament was written in, surely the apostles writing it would have been preserved from making an error that could later lead to confusion? And Matthew would after all have been present at Peter’s confession of faith?

But Jesus spoke in Aramaic, so the Gospels you are reading are the Apostle’s translations of Jesus’ words into Greek.

There is also the theory that Matthew was originally written in Hebrew, as there is some evidence that this is the case.

 

[prodromos]

Why? She asked for early writings. This I have provided. Are you saying he did not write what I posted? Or are you saying that he was mistaken in what he wrote? The latter is of no consequence. He obviously felt the synods and God did give the authority to Rome. Can you prove that he did not believe what he wrote?

There are a number of issues with the document which suggest it is a forgery. [edit] Apologies, the document I’m referring to is the debate between Maximus and Pyrrhus, “Disputatio cum Pyrrho” and not the one you’ve quoted, although it also has issues. [/edit]

But since you ask, he could be referring to:

Canon VI of Nicaea, the definition of which is under dispute, but he seems to hold the Latin view of it.

Canon IV of Sardica

The Decree of Damasus following the Synod of Rome.

The Council of Chalcedon: " Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, **‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, **which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451])

Now I am positive none of this will persuade you.

Since none of it is persuasive, you should hardly be surprised.

 

[Peter_J]

St Cyprian claimed that as a bishop, he himself sat in Peter’s chair, so I don’t put much stock in how Catholic apologists interpret his writings.

TY for letting us know.

I don’t know if this goes without saying, but I predict that many Catholic posters don’t put much stock in how Orthodox apologists interpret his writings.

 

[GLam8833]

Then there is the concept of Apostolic succession
which originates w/ the first of the Apostles, Peter,
from him hangs the concept of Apostolic succession
even Paul recognized Peter as the one as the
Pillar of the Church. Gal. 2:9 And Jesus is the One
who commissioned Peter at the Last Breakfast to
“feed My sheep”. John 21

 

[jcrichton]

Except there are a number of Latin Fathers even who say the exact opposite. This has been hashed out in a number of previous threads here where I showed this in detail and via Latin, etc. Since this topic comes up so often, I wound up simply creating a blog where I store my past arguments, evidence, and translations. In times past, I’ve been accused of self-aggrandizement, or even evangelization, etc. for posting links to my own blog. And if this was the apologetics section of the forum, I would agree with that assessment. However, since we are in Non-Catholics section, I assume that this matter is up for discussion for both Catholics and Non-Catholics, which would obviously include us Orthodox. Therefore, I will post the links because this is a very interesting topic.

With that long intro and caveat, I’ll go ahead and lay my cards on the table with the upmost respect for my Catholic friends here. I freely admit that these are somewhat polemical, but I ask that we just stick to the direct evidence (quotes of the Fathers) that I present. I could tailor the evidence all over again for this thread in particular, but that would require an exorbitant amount of time considering the amount of evidence I have amassed that contradicts your position. If there is any dispute with any of the evidence presented, then please quote it in a quote box.

Is Peter the Rock?: The Opinion of the Latin Fathers

Peter and the Keys: An Addendum to the Rock

I hope that I am not presumptive in answering the question. If so, my apologies. In theory, there is nothing objectionable in the idea of a universal jurisdiction if it was collegially established via council or something along those lines. Whether or not we would want to establish that is another story entirely. What we object to is the idea that the universal office and jurisdiction was divinely established and therefore a theological necessity.

…the problem, as in most cases, is interpretation.

Why?

Because man comes to Scriptures with preconceptions and discrimination…

When man allows the Holy Spirit (which includes all Believers, with the exception of the Jews and those who, like them, reject the Holy Trinity) to be the Guide, Scriptures clearly point to God’s Design:

1. Simon, son of… you are Cephas/Kephas/Rock/Peter
2. I will give you the Keys to the Kingdom
3. on you, Peter/Cephas/Kephas/Rock I will Build (as in Found) my Community (Greek: Ekklesia) and not even the gates of hell (hades/the underworld/Sheol) would prevail against it.

Only if a person rejects Jesus’ Election and Delegation could anything else be interpreted as the meaning of God’s Intent.

It is interesting that why you quote the East as your source of great enlightenment you do not demonstrate that the Office of St. Peter was not held in primacy even through Scriptures… it is as curious as the fact that St. Peter is set, in Scriptures, as the first of the Apostles something that a blind man could conceive through hearing of the Word: Twelve were chosen; One was given the responsibility to gather and unite the rest.

The obstinate stubbornness of man leads him to believe that it is man who can determine what must transpire in the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body. It is as though if man can ignore Christ’s deliberate Delegation and Election of the one formerly known as Simon and whose election by Christ redefined forever his station as he is named Cephas, the rock on which Christ would Build His Church, then God has to acquiesce to man’s offering and construct(this was the error of Cain): the Body of Christ according to “x,” “y,” “z,” and all of those other legends that erupted at the Inception of the Church and continue to splinter the Body of Christ, even till today.

Adopting the belief that Christ Founded His Church only to leave it behind surrounded by an ocean of unlimited confusion and disorder… well… that can only be classified as temerity and ignorance of the Word.

Ignoring Scriptures, Apostolic Teaching, Apostolic Succession, and Church History will never lead to fruition… Where’s the humility? Where’s the obedience? Where’s the submission to Christ’s Mystical Body?: Be one. Love one another. Remain in Me.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Others have already voiced things similar to what I have to say, but I do want to reiterate that affirming that St. Peter as the rock upon which Christ founds the Church is not a problem for Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. Catholic apologists too often assume that once this is established their work is done, but they often miss a step: demonstrating that the bishop of Rome is the sole successor of St. Peter. The problem, though, is that several of the Church Fathers seemed to believe that all bishops sit in the Chair of Peter.

Hi!
…that’s like stating that all Americans are good-meaning people and claiming as proof that there’s a song titled “God Bless America,” and that there’s a Biblical passage that speaks on Israel being aided by the kingdom from the North…

Each Bishop is responsible for his local (direct) Flock… but even if you do not agree with me you must agree that Christ prophesied that He would make one Flock out of the two different sheep (Jews & Gentiles) and that there would be but one Shepherd for the one Flock–so either Christ had it right or He was wrong and man is the one that has it right.

There are those who swear that there’s order in chaos… St. Paul must not have been in school that day for he preaches that God is not a God of disorder.

Man is disordered–that is why it takes so much time for the Holy Spirit to set things right, in our hearts and in our heads!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

I agree that many of the early Christian writings reveal varied interpretations of what “rock” the church is built on. Some identify the rock as Jesus Christ, the confession of faith in Christ, and some identify Peter as the rock. Most of the writings I am aware of that identify Peter as the rock state that Peter is the figure for the whole church. I have not seen any early writings that identify Peter as the Rock and that this is a position that has successors that are exclusively the bishops of Rome.

St. Augustine clarified his understanding of the issue late in his life when he wrote The Retractions.

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built.’ This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: ‘At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.’ But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.”
books.google.com/books?id=DikZ4GEmgUIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=augustine,+the+retractions&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwihwvf51p_QAhWj5oMKHbhzD8kQ6AEIGzAA#v=snippet&q='Thou%20art%20Peter%2C%20and%20upon%20this%20rock%20I%20will%20build%20my%20Church&f=false

This is a lengthy compilation of quotes about Matthew 16:18 from writings for the first 800 years: christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

I guess you missed my quotes:

In the first place, let us note St. Chrysostom’s habit of showing his extraordinary reverence for St. Peter, by habitually adding to his name a whole list of titles, for instance:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

“Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness.” (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

“The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples.” (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

“The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider’s web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world.” (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

“Peter, the base, the pillar…” (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

“This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation.” (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48]) (biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num52.htm)

…of course, you could ignore it or claim that it does not repeat itself or that it was but one man, etc. Yet, when you Go to Christ and you allow Him to be One to make the Election and the Foundation of His Church… well, He must have had some reason for His deliberation (the Election of Cephas and Delegation of Christ’s Authority)–otherwise, He must be, as some suggest, quite an attention getter… a drama queen–what with the ‘Cephas’ and ‘on this rock’ imagery… and how huge would be the Keys to the Kingdom would have been… like a foot long… made of something shinny?.. perhaps He would have thrown some sort of confetti to complete His Presentation…and then the twist, at the last second: ‘Sike! Peter, I don’t really mean you… I meant myself… I’m the Rock! Ha! IN YOUR FACE!’

…yeah, the mind can get carried away… but in all seriousness, do you actually believe that God Founded His Church and just sat back for man to complete His Salvific Plan?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper,** by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.** That church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. **With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, **that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

This writing does not mention Matthew 16:18, the rock or the keys anywhere. But it does talk about succession of the apostles. When you look at Chapter 1 you see that he is talking about the fact that there are no hidden secrets that the apostles gave to certain people (specifically Marcion and Valentius) that the apostles did not give to church. Marcion and Valentius who he names directly are 2 Gnostic/heretical teachers that were teaching specifically in Rome, so it would make sense for him to specifically mention this Roman church. He also in Chapter 4 mentions Polycarp of Smyrna and his succession from the apostles. He briefly mentions the church in Ephesus, but he doesn’t mention any of the other successions because as it says in chapter 2 that you provided that it would be too long and tedious to do so. But clearly he thinks that all of the apostolic churches have the same tradition from the apostles.
newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

 

[jcrichton]

And he didn’t use either of those words because those are Greek words.

Matthew was written in Aramaic, he used the word Kepha (rock) for both.

You are kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church…

There was no “using two different words” idea. Some church fathers had only the Greek text in front of them and not the original Aramaic.

Hi, Bob!
Excellent point.

…too many times people continue to get hang up on the word (petra vs petro); they make a whole to do about the etymology of the word while ignoring the fact that the term would have been Kepha (Cephas)–in Jesus there was no confusion: ‘I, the Rock of Israel, choose you, Simon Peter, on whom to Build (Found) my Church.’

Maran atha!

Angel