How does the Orthodox Church interpret Matthew 16:13-19

[Michael_M]

A number of the eastern churches have entered back into communion with Rome, and there are thus many rites, or cultural and liturgical traditions within the one holy catholic and apostolic church. To me, central spiritual and moral authority makes sense a priori. I do not see how Matthew 16:13-19 can be interpreted any other way than Christ establishing the office of the papacy.

“‘Good for you, Simon son of John!’ answered Jesus. ‘For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.’”

In light of this passage, Protestant charges that the pope is the Anti-Christ, and the Orthodox rejection of the papacy befuddles me. It doesn’t seem to me that it could be any more clear that Christ indeed wished for his church to be governed by central authority.

Can someone explain to me the alternate interpretation of this passage, or how this passage is side-stepped in order to reject the papacy? I’m extremely curious. And a note to my Orthodox brothers and sisters: I am in no way implying your church is in the wrong; such is not for me to decide. I simply have a scholarly interest in comparative Christian theology and church history.

Thanks!

 

[RKO]

Wouldn’t a strict interpretation of that verse establish the church in Antioch the FIRST true church?

 

[credoicxc]

I have a copy of The Orthodox Study Bible (New Testament and Psalms).

Its commentary on Matthew 16:18 is that the word rock does not refer to St. Peter but to his confession of faith — “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then for verse 19 it says that he clearly was given a special authority (but not separated from his confession) and was the leader among the apostles. The author(s) of the commentary refer(s) to Acts 15 as evidence that Peter was not over the apostles but perfectly equal with them.

The historical problem with the word rock referring only to Peter’s confession is that the Church officially believes Peter is the rock:

“Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” (Council of Chalcedon, Session III, translated by Henry Percival)

I think it’s very obvious that Peter is the rock. Simon is named Peter (‘Rock’), and Jesus says “this rock.” What else in that scene was labeled a rock? Nothing.

Another neat statement at one of the early Ecumenical Councils:

“For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle.” (Council of Ephesus, Session II, translated by Henry Percival)

I wonder what it means to non-Catholics who affirm Ephesus is canonical that the Apostle Peter is “the head of the whole faith.”

You are right that Matthew 16 makes it very clear that Jesus wanted a central authority for His Church. As for the charge that the Papacy is the Antichrist, I wrote a post that uses St. John’s Apocalypse to refute this charge.

 

[Schism_hater]

A number of the eastern churches have entered back into communion with Rome, and there are thus many rites, or cultural and liturgical traditions within the one holy catholic and apostolic church. To me, central spiritual and moral authority makes sense a priori. I do not see how Matthew 16:13-19 can be interpreted any other way than Christ establishing the office of the papacy.

“‘Good for you, Simon son of John!’ answered Jesus. ‘For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.’”

In light of this passage, Protestant charges that the pope is the Anti-Christ, and the Orthodox rejection of the papacy befuddles me. It doesn’t seem to me that it could be any more clear that Christ indeed wished for his church to be governed by central authority.

Can someone explain to me the alternate interpretation of this passage, or how this passage is side-stepped in order to reject the papacy? I’m extremely curious. And a note to my Orthodox brothers and sisters: I am in no way implying your church is in the wrong; such is not for me to decide. I simply have a scholarly interest in comparative Christian theology and church history.

Thanks!

Right doctrine cannot be built on the basis of one passage of scripture alone. You have to take into account Matt. 18:18 where the same authority to bind and loose is given to the other disciples. You have to take into account John 21 where Christ solemnly and scaramentally confers the Holy Spirit and the charism to forgive sins upon all the apostles at once, without any priority. Most telling, at least from my point of view, is to see authority in the early Church in practice, and we see that at Acts 15, where, even though Peter was present and gave arguably the most influential speech, the decision was made by all the gathered apostles and presbyters, under the presidency not of Peter, but of S. James.

Then, since we are not sola scriptura, the witness of the Fathers and the aposotlic tradition must be taken into account, particularly where they dealt with the issue of church authority. The overall approach of the early and Patristic church was to interpret Matt 16:18 as applying to all bishops, or to the Church as a whole, which Peter at that moment represented. That is in fact St. Augustine’s interpretation.

 

[Nicea325]

Right doctrine cannot be built on the basis of one passage of scripture alone. You have to take into account Matt. 18:18 where the same authority to bind and loose is given to the other disciples. You have to take into account John 21 where Christ solemnly and scaramentally confers the Holy Spirit and the charism to forgive sins upon all the apostles at once, without any priority. Most telling, at least from my point of view, is to see authority in the early Church in practice, and we see that at Acts 15, where, even though Peter was present and gave arguably the most influential speech, the decision was made by all the gathered apostles and presbyters, under the presidency not of Peter, but of S. James.

Then, since we are not sola scriptura, the witness of the Fathers and the aposotlic tradition must be taken into account, particularly where they dealt with the issue of church authority. The overall approach of the early and Patristic church was to interpret Matt 16:18 as applying to all bishops, or to the Church as a whole, which Peter at that moment represented. That is in fact St. Augustine’s interpretation.

Indeed, but where do all receive the keys? As for St. Augustine? I believe he takes it a bit further in terms of the Bishop of Rome…

God Bless

 

[Rawb]

I have a copy of The Orthodox Study Bible (New Testament and Psalms).

Its commentary on Matthew 16:18 is that the word rock does not refer to St. Peter but to his confession of faith — “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then for verse 19 it says that he clearly was given a special authority (but not separated from his confession) and was the leader among the apostles. The author(s) of the commentary refer(s) to Acts 15 as evidence that Peter was not over the apostles but perfectly equal with them.

The historical problem with the word rock referring only to Peter’s confession is that the Church officially believes Peter is the rock:

“Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith…” (Council of Chalcedon, Session III, translated by Henry Percival)

I think it’s very obvious that Peter is the rock. Simon is named Peter (‘Rock’), and Jesus says “this rock.” What else in that scene was labeled a rock? Nothing.

Another neat statement at one of the early Ecumenical Councils:

“For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle.” (Council of Ephesus, Session II, translated by Henry Percival)

I wonder what it means to non-Catholics who affirm Ephesus is canonical that the Apostle Peter is “the head of the whole faith.”

You are right that Matthew 16 makes it very clear that Jesus wanted a central authority for His Church. As for the charge that the Papacy is the Antichrist, I wrote a post that uses St. John’s Apocalypse to refute this charge.

Of course it’s not unreasonable to see St. Peter, in a sense, as his confession personified, at least from the Orthodox perspective. Also, St. Peter being the foundation of the Orthodox Faith would mean just that - St. Peter is the foundation, that doesn’t correspond, mean, or say that every ‘descendant’ of his is also the foundation. The Pope is not St. Peter; St. Peter is a person, not an idea.

 

[Nicea325]

Of course it’s not unreasonable to see St. Peter, in a sense, as his confession personified, at least from the Orthodox perspective. Also, St. Peter being the foundation of the Orthodox Faith would mean just that - St. Peter is the foundation, that doesn’t correspond, mean, or say that every ‘descendant’ of his is also the foundation. The Pope is not St. Peter; St. Peter is a person, not an idea.

The pope is an office,precisely what Peter had and passed on.

 

[dzheremi]

Not to the Orthodox, it isn’t. Just two weeks ago HG Bishop Youssef blessed us with a visit to consecrate our new church here in Albuquerque and celebrate its first liturgy. Before meeting him (technically for the second time, but I didn’t actually get to speak to him the first time), I asked my friend what we are to call him in direct address (e.g., priests are “Abouna”…I only knew “Usquf”, but I knew that wasn’t the right title for direct address). He said we call him “Sayedna”, and added “just like we call the Pope, because he’s a bishop too” (and he’s right; searching for it in Arabic, you find a lot of of that, usually with “al-Baba” added in there to show that we’re talking about the Pope, who is after all the most senior/highest bishop in terms of the organizational structure of the Church).

So…he’s Pope, alright, but he’s definitely still a bishop. I think only the Latins have this idea of “Pope” as some kind of separate office, and I’m glad to see (at least from what I can get from news reports) that Pope Francis appears to be trying to get back to this understanding.

 

[Nicea325]

Not to the Orthodox, it isn’t. Just two weeks ago HG Bishop Youssef blessed us with a visit to consecrate our new church here in Albuquerque and celebrate its first liturgy. Before meeting him (technically for the second time, but I didn’t actually get to speak to him the first time), I asked my friend what we are to call him in direct address (e.g., priests are “Abouna”…I only knew “Usquf”, but I knew that wasn’t the right title for direct address). He said we call him “Sayedna”, and added “just like we call the Pope, because he’s a bishop too” (and he’s right; searching for it in Arabic, you find a lot of of that, usually with “al-Baba” added in there to show that we’re talking about the Pope, who is after all the most senior/highest bishop in terms of the organizational structure of the Church).

So…he’s Pope, alright, but he’s definitely still a bishop. I think only the Latins have this idea of “Pope” as some kind of separate office, and I’m glad to see (at least from what I can get from news reports) that Pope Francis appears to be trying to get back to this understanding.

No one is claiming the pope is a separate office,but moreover, it is part of the universal church. That is like saying the President is a separate office from the Executive Branch.

 

[credoicxc]

Of course it’s not unreasonable to see St. Peter, in a sense, as his confession personified, at least from the Orthodox perspective. Also, St. Peter being the foundation of the Orthodox Faith would mean just that - St. Peter is the foundation, that doesn’t correspond, mean, or say that every ‘descendant’ of his is also the foundation. The Pope is not St. Peter; St. Peter is a person, not an idea.

Rawb,

Admittedly, from my perspective it certainly is indeed reasonable to see St. Peter, in some sense, as the personification of his own confession.

I agree with you that the successors of Peter are not the foundation of the Catholic Church. Allow me to quote a passage from the Council of Ephesus:

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place… (Council of Ephesus, Session III, translated by Henry Percival)

I think this passage calls Peter the foundation because he was the first to receive the Keys of the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind sins. His successors, the bishops of Rome, are what grow from the foundation, which would mean they are not the foundation itself. They continue his apostolic work of binding and loosing or forgiving and remitting; this is how Peter forever lives and judges on earth.

Speaking of Peter being the foundation, I don’t think he is the only foundation:

Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone. (Ephesians 2:19-20)

All of the Apostles are the foundation, for they also ordained disciples as bishops of the Church, thus the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and all those who are in communion with them are called Apostolic Churches. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus told more than one person, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” which implies more than one person has the Keys of the Kingdom. It is obvious to me then that Peter (and the See of Rome) isn’t the only one with the Keys.

I am curious as to what your view is of the following passage from Nicaea II:

For, if he is Universal, he is recognized to have the Primacy even over the Church of our See, which appears ridiculous to all faithful Christians: because in the whole world the chief rank and power was given to the blessed Apostle Peter by the Redeemer of the world himself; and through the same Apostle, whose place we unworthily hold, the holy Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church holds the first rank, and the authority of power, now and for ever… (Second Council of Nicaea, Session II, translated by Henry Percival)

I honestly do like the view that the Bishop of Rome has the primacy as in he is the first among equals — the place of honour. I am happy that, since Pope Paul VI, the papal tiara has not been worn and that Benedict VI and Francis have a mitre instead of a tiara on their personal coats of arms. But what do we make of the Church of Rome holding the first rank and the authority of power? Perhaps this passage from Nicaea II is not saying Rome has the chief authority but merely the chief/first rank (and all Churches have authority)?

Looking forward to your reply.

Pax tecum!

 

[Rawb]

I agree with you that the successors of Peter are not the foundation of the Catholic Church. Allow me to quote a passage from the Council of Ephesus:

I think this passage calls Peter the foundation because he was the first to receive the Keys of the Kingdom and the power to loose and bind sins. His successors, the bishops of Rome, are what grow from the foundation, which would mean they are not the foundation itself. They continue his apostolic work of binding and loosing or forgiving and remitting; this is how Peter forever lives and judges on earth.

It’s important to note that Orthodox regard all Bishops of The Church as successors of the Apostles, including St. Peter. It’s as if “Apostle” were an office, a pre-cursor to Bishops, and the Bishops then inherited the authority and powers of Apostleship.

This fits in well with what you say here:

Speaking of Peter being the foundation, I don’t think he is the only foundation:

All of the Apostles are the foundation, for they also ordained disciples as bishops of the Church, thus the Churches of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, and all those who are in communion with them are called Apostolic Churches. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus told more than one person, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven,” which implies more than one person has the Keys of the Kingdom. It is obvious to me then that Peter (and the See of Rome) isn’t the only one with the Keys.

But there is a hierarchy amongst the equal, a concept foreign to logic and scholasticism, but quite obvious to families and loving relationships (such as husband and wife). St. Peter was the highest in honor, and most agree that that honor was then attributed to Rome (though note also - many do not believe it is because St. Peter was the bishop of Rome, but because Rome was the site of his martyrdom, along with St. Paul’s, and the capital of the Empire. After all, St. Peter was definitely the founder of The Church at Antioch, and the Patriarch of Antioch is not afforded this highest honor, nor even second place).

I honestly do like the view that the Bishop of Rome has the primacy as in he is the first among equals — the place of honour. I am happy that, since Pope Paul VI, the papal tiara has not been worn and that Benedict VI and Francis have a mitre instead of a tiara on their personal coats of arms. But what do we make of the Church of Rome holding the first rank and the authority of power? Perhaps this passage from Nicaea II is not saying Rome has the chief authority but merely the chief/first rank (and all Churches have authority)?

Your interpretation would fit the Orthodox perspective. Rome had the first in honor, and in Orthodoxy with great honor comes great power (ask any devout Orthodox what they would do if a monk told them to jump. Monks are afforded great honor in Orthodoxy). Rome’s authority would’ve been pretty significant - had she not demanded it as Divine mandate and right.

So the one issue with your interpretation is this: Before the papal doctrines we may have said “Rome has chief authority” because that could mean the same thing as saying “My oldest brother has the chief authority.” When authority isn’t presumed upon there is a natural hierarchy obeyed out of love and kinship. Picture though, what happens when suddenly the oldest brother begins saying “No, you have to do as I say, and I’m incapable of saying something against what Dad would’ve said.” The family dynamic is suddenly very different. Thus while we no longer would say “authority” because of the now-associated complications, it’s not too out of line, before the schism and in an imaginary-never-schismed Church, to attribute authority to the Pope.

But that was then, and now we have a situation where that loving obedience has been deprived of love, and so everything is different.

 

[credoicxc]

When I wrote “Benedict VI and Francis have a mitre instead of a tiara on their personal coats of arms,” I meant Benedict XVI. Hope I don’t throw anyone off.

Thanks for your reply, Rawb. I will respond tomorrow, if the Lord wishes.

 

[Rawb]

When I wrote “Benedict VI and Francis have a mitre instead of a tiara on their personal coats of arms,” I meant Benedict XVI. Hope I don’t throw anyone off.

Thanks for your reply, Rawb. I will respond tomorrow, if the Lord wishes.

It caught me up as I was reading aloud to my wife, but I assumed what you meant.

It reminds me of something I’ve been idly wondering about though; has it been decided, is it Pope Francis I or just Pope Francis?

 

[smp501]

As I understand it he’s just Francis now, and he’ll be Francis I when there is a Francis II. I could be wrong though.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am curious as to what your view is of the following passage from Nicaea II:

I honestly do like the view that the Bishop of Rome has the primacy as in he is the first among equals — the place of honour. I am happy that, since Pope Paul VI, the papal tiara has not been worn and that Benedict VI and Francis have a mitre instead of a tiara on their personal coats of arms. But what do we make of the Church of Rome holding the first rank and the authority of power? Perhaps this passage from Nicaea II is not saying Rome has the chief authority but merely the chief/first rank (and all Churches have authority)?

That is not from the Second Council of Nicaea at all. It is from Pope Hadrian’s letter to the council. The passage was omitted from the Greek translation read publicly at the council, and so to claim that it is a passage from the Second Council of Nicaea is quite a stretch.

 

[credoicxc]

Your interpretation would fit the Orthodox perspective. Rome had the first in honor, and in Orthodoxy with great honor comes great power (ask any devout Orthodox what they would do if a monk told them to jump. Monks are afforded great honor in Orthodoxy). Rome’s authority would’ve been pretty significant - had she not demanded it as Divine mandate and right.

Recently I have been thinking about how wonderful it would be if the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church were to return to full communion in my lifetime.

I believe Peter is the Rock and the Immaculate Conception is a true doctrine. Call me a Papist. lol.