Eastern Orthodox Interpretation of Peter the Rock

[susanlo]

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]).

We can see more of what Cyprian understands of unity (in a writing that actually mentions the rock and the keys) coming from one source in his Treatise, On the Unity of the Church.

“4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4”
newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

So Cyprian does understand Rome to have a symbolic unity, but an equal authority. This is best noted in his disagreements with Bishop of Rome Stephen who Cyprian disagreed with regarding re-baptism of heretics. Cyprian and 87 Bishops gathered to oppose Stephen and all agreed that:
“**For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.”
**newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

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]).

I have not heard of Optatus before. This is the first thing that I read from him. I see that he is writing against the Donatist heretics who had separated from the church. I don’t see anything that would make me think that he is doing anything more that echoing Cyprian in symbolizing unity in the cathedra of Peter.

 

[jcrichton]

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?

…are you intimating that Scriptures (the New Testament) were Written without communication with the Apostles and without the Inspiration of the Holy Spirit?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

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.

…hey, does that stock come with bread or corn-bread?

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[susanlo]

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).

I have not studied many writings from this time in history. I have read about these writings briefly. I understand that the authenticity of these quotes is questioned because they are in Latin and not in Greek. Also, the content seems peculiar given the timing of the 6th ecumenical council of Constantinople in 678 and the fact that Maximus was a contemporary of Honorius. The issue of Honorius is another topic that could get away from the original topic of the interpretation of Matthew 16:18. However even if these quotes are actually authentic, they contradict the statements of the 6th Council of Constantinople.

 

[susanlo]

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

Galatians 2:9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised

It looks like Paul recognized that 3 men were thought to be pillars of the church in Jerusalem. I have wondered if Peter was the Apostle for the circumcised, why he ended up going to the Gentile Christians in Rome.

 

[GLam8833]

Galatians 2:9 James, Cephas[c] and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised

It looks like Paul recognized that 3 men were thought to be pillars of the church in Jerusalem. I have wondered if Peter was the Apostle for the circumcised, why he ended up going to the Gentile Christians in Rome.

Yes, you are right, James and John were also called
pillars of the Church in Jerusalem. But Jesus comm-
issioned Peter not once, but thrice!! Matt. 16;Luke 22:31-
32 John 21.

 

[susanlo]

I guess you missed my quotes:

…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

I agree that John Chrysostom had many nice things to say of Peter. Did he ever say that these attributes were passed on to the Bishops of Rome?

Chrysostom does refer to Simon-Peter as “rock.” However he says that the church is built on his confession of faith.
In his homily on this portion of the book of Matthew he writes:
“3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are 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 begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”
newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Chrysostom says many wonderful compliments of Peter and refers to him as a rock. No one denies that Simon’s name was changed to Rock. However, Chrysostom does not state that the church is built on Peter/Rock the person. And he (as to my knowledge) doesn’t transfer the many wonderful statements about the Rock to the Bishops in Rome.

 

[BobCatholic]

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?

Matthew was the sole exception of the NT written in Greek. It was originally written in Aramaic. Remember, Matthew was writing his Gospel to Jews.

 

[truthseeker32]

Matthew was the sole exception of the NT written in Greek. It was originally written in Aramaic. Remember, Matthew was writing his Gospel to Jews.

This theory isn’t supported by scholarly consensus, so at most you are justified in claiming that there may have been an Aramaic version of Matthew.

 

[BobCatholic]

This theory isn’t supported by scholarly consensus, so at most you are justified in claiming that there may have been an Aramaic version of Matthew.

So Eusebius of Cesarea just lied about the original Gospel of Matthew being in Aramaic? As well as St. Jerome? The contents of the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima were well known to both men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_Library_of_Caesarea_Maritima

Jerome knew of this copy of the so-called “Hebrew” or Aramaic text of the Gospel of Matthew and Eusebius refers to the catalogue of the library that he appended to his life of Pamphilus.

And did I forget to post this?
hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

Seems those scholars you cite missed some key evidence.

 

[truthseeker32]

So Eusebius of Cesarea just lied about the original Gospel of Matthew being in Aramaic? As well as St. Jerome? The contents of the Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima were well known to both men.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_Library_of_Caesarea_Maritima

And did I forget to post this?
hebrewgospel.com/Matthew%20Two%20Gospels%20Main%20Evidence.php

Seems those scholars you cite missed some key evidence.

There is a difference between lying and believing incorrect traditions. There are plenty of things the Church Fathers believed that we now know to be false due to evidence that wasn’t available to them. For example, they weren’t liars for believing that the earth was created in 5700 BC; they didn’t know any better.

 

[Bookcat]

Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.com/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox

 

[Duane1966]

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

Agreed. But which one of the churches did he say is the greatest?

 

[truthseeker32]

Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.com/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox

When did Catholic apologists stoop to the same level as CARM?

 

[Peter_J]

When did Catholic apologists stoop to the same level as CARM?

Is this a riddle?

Where was Noah when the lights went out?

 

[prodromos]

I agree that John Chrysostom had many nice things to say of Peter. Did he ever say that these attributes were passed on to the Bishops of Rome?

Chrysostom does refer to Simon-Peter as “rock.” However he says that the church is built on his confession of faith.
In his homily on this portion of the book of Matthew he writes:
“3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are 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 begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”
newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Chrysostom says many wonderful compliments of Peter and refers to him as a rock. No one denies that Simon’s name was changed to Rock. However, Chrysostom does not state that the church is built on Peter/Rock the person. And he (as to my knowledge) doesn’t transfer the many wonderful statements about the Rock to the Bishops in Rome.

As St John Chrysostom spent most of his life not in communion with Rome, and in all that time wrote nothing suggesting he believed communion with Rome was something necessary, it is pretty obvious he didn’t see the bishops of Rome as Rome today claims.

 

[prodromos]

Jimmy Akin jimmyakin.com/why-i-am-not-eastern-orthodox

Would you like me to post links to the many former Catholics who converted to Orthodoxy?
Some of them were monks and others were clergy. Would that be helpful?

 

[BobCatholic]

There is a difference between lying and believing incorrect traditions. There are plenty of things the Church Fathers believed that we now know to be false due to evidence that wasn’t available to them. For example, they weren’t liars for believing that the earth was created in 5700 BC; they didn’t know any better.

And how do you know they were “incorrect traditions” (specifically: Matthew was originally written in Aramaic - no no no - that’s incorrect!!!)

Scholars two thousand years after the fact said so? We have the same argument for SSM, and other heresies.

 

[Peter_J]

As St John Chrysostom spent most of his life not in communion with Rome, and in all that time wrote nothing suggesting he believed communion with Rome was something necessary, it is pretty obvious he didn’t see the bishops of Rome as Rome today claims.

On the question of communion with the Bishops of Rome, we know that** the doctrine concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff has experienced a development over time **within the framework of the explanation of the Church’s faith, and it has to be retained in its entirety, which means from its origins to our day. One only has to think about what the first Vatican Council affirmed and what Vatican Council II declared, particularly in the Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium Num. 22 and 23, and in the Decree on ecumenism Unitatis Redintegratio Number 2.

• excerpt of a letter from Joseph Card. Ratzinger, Achille Card. Silvestrini, and Edward Card. Cassidy; emphasis mine

 

[Rohzek]

…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

So are you gonna actually speak to the arguments or just say I’m wrong and you’re right? Because you didn’t list a specific counter-point listed in the link.