Orthodox-What is Your View Re The "Primacy" of Peter/Keys?

[Anna_Scott]

Matthew 16 (ESV): 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

I recently read “The Primacy of Peter, Essays in Ecclesiology and the Early Church,” John Meyendorff, Editor. This is a fascinating book written from the Orthodox viewpoint.

I would really like to hear from Orthodox forum members regarding your views on the “Primacy of Peter,” the “Keys,” the “Rock” upon which the Church is built; and how “Apostolic Succession” relates to authority.

Thanks to All,
Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

When faced with that particular verse, first off I like to extend the verse to Matthew 23. When Peter declared the truth Christ proclaimed him the Rock, but when he erred, Christ just as quickly proclaimed him Satan (Hebrew for adversary). I think taking this into account it is not the person of Peter who was “the rock” but the faith that he proclaimed. With that said he certainly held a special place among the Apostles, though he did not exercise authority over them as is often claimed by Catholics.

Apostolic Succession makes a Bishop successor to all the Apostles, and not just the successor who held his see before him - who most often had nothing to do with his ordination, since apostolic succession is passed through the laying on of hands, and not by sitting in a specific diocese.

The Authority which Rome held came therefore not from Peter, though certainly they held the office of the See of St. Peter, but rather from her long history of orthodoxy - interupted only briefly by Honorius.

I saw that book at the Church bookstore on Sunday and was thinking about picking it up.

 

[Anna_Scott]

When faced with that particular verse, first off I like to extend the verse to Matthew 23. When Peter declared the truth Christ proclaimed him the Rock, but when he erred, Christ just as quickly proclaimed him Satan (Hebrew for adversary). I think taking this into account it is not the person of Peter who was “the rock” but the faith that he proclaimed.

The contrast between being called the “Rock” and “Satan” is a very interesting point.

I was actually very surprised to find Peter’s “confession” emphasized in the book. I was not aware of the Orthodox view. The book talks not only about Peter’s confession to Christ; but also about Peter being the first to make the great public confession of the work of Christ, and the mystery of His being glorified after His Passion and Resurrection. (Acts 2:23-4; Acts 2:32-3; Acts 2:36)

With that said he certainly held a special place among the Apostles, though he did not exercise authority over them as is often claimed by Catholics.

“The Primacy of Peter” certainly gives credit to Peter in his role as Protos, or First among the Twelve in the heart of their Church, taking the initiative to elect an Apostle to replace Judas, among other things.

Also, Paul received his authority directly from Christ, and not through Peter or the Apostles.

The book ties Peter’s role to “fixed historical conditions of a unique kind”:
“At Jerusalem, then, Peter’s primacy, which we began by considering, was a primacy within the Twelve, tied to the presence of the Twelve and the birth of the Pentecostal Church. Peter’s primacy, thus taken, is tied to a particular role and to fixed historical conditions of a unique kind: this view finds wide support in the New Testament writings, as the beginning of our essay shows. But as historical conditions changed, and Peter left Jerusalem, he no longer figured as one of the Twelve: he became a roving apostle. The Twelve no longer formed a collegium at Jerusalem, so the city lost its position as hierarchical center. Given these new historical conditions, is it still possible to speak of the primacy of Peter? The New Testament texts in no way show that it is.” (page 33)

I’m hoping to tempt you to buy the book. lol

Apostolic Succession makes a Bishop successor to all the Apostles, and not just the successor who held his see before him - who most often had nothing to do with his ordination, since apostolic succession is passed through the laying on of hands, and not by sitting in a specific diocese.

In the Orthodox view, is authority transmitted through the laying on of hands only in unbroken Apostolic Succession? I’m thinking about the many forum discussions about “valid orders.”

The Authority which Rome held came therefore not from Peter, though certainly they held the office of the See of St. Peter, but rather from her long history of orthodoxy - interupted only briefly by Honorius.

Honorius was part of a recent discussion on the “Keenan Catechism.” Still trying to sort out how Honorius affected Apostolic Succession.

I saw that book at the Church bookstore on Sunday and was thinking about picking it up.

If you read the book, I’d love to hear your feedback.

Other interesting quotes from the book about the leadership of James:
“After Peter leaves (Acts 12:17), James is the one always mentioned as head of the Church of Jerusalem.” (Page 27)

“But the role that James played at Jerusalem, after Peter had gone, was surely very comparable to the role bishops were to play later on: a lifelong and continuous place as leader of a local church, with a group of presbyters in support. James may not have been called Bishop, but he was in fact the first monarchical bishop of a local church.” (Page 28)

Any comments on these quotes?

Thanks so much!
Anna

Edited to add P.S.
Quotes in this post from “The Primacy of Peter” taken from Chapter 1, Peter’s Place in the Primitive Church, Nicholas Koulomzine.

 

[scottm]

I would really like to hear from Orthodox forum members regarding your views on the “Primacy of Peter,” the “Keys,” the “Rock” upon which the Church is built; and how “Apostolic Succession” relates to authority.

Matt 16 is written in the future tense. Matt 18:18 is in the present tense and is addressed to all of the disciples. Jesus gave them all equal authority, and that’s how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years. The Great Commission fits with this.

Peter’s task from Jesus was to “feed my sheep.” It was not to “govern my sheep” or “lord over my sheep” or “act as ruler over my sheep” or any such thing. It was to FEED MY SHEEP. And that is how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years, with the Bishop of Rome as an elder brother who gave advice now and then to his siblings.

The “rock” could be Peter individually, or his confession. I’m ambivalent. If taken as Peter it is recognition of his role as shepherd to the shepherds, but this in the context of all of them being given equal authority from Jesus.

 

[Nine_Two]

“The Primacy of Peter” certainly gives credit to Peter in his role as Protos, or First among the Twelve in the heart of their Church, taking the initiative to elect an Apostle to replace Judas, among other things.

An interesting discussion I was part of recently. Did the Apostles themselves err in electing a new Apostle, since Christ himself later appointed Paul Apostle (in many early texts he is called “The Apostle”, and never named), while you never hear much about Matthias (I have no doubt he was fullfilling a role in the Church, but he doesn’t seem prominent).

Also, Paul received his authority directly from Christ, and not through Peter or the Apostles.

The interesting thing here though is that though Paul received authority directly from Christ, his first instruction was to go to Peter to learn the faith. This of course certainly confirms Peter as a leader in the early Church, it also seems to imply the need for continuity.

The book ties Peter’s role to “fixed historical conditions of a unique kind”:
“At Jerusalem, then, Peter’s primacy, which we began by considering, was a primacy within the Twelve, tied to the presence of the Twelve and the birth of the Pentecostal Church. Peter’s primacy, thus taken, is tied to a particular role and to fixed historical conditions of a unique kind: this view finds wide support in the New Testament writings, as the beginning of our essay shows. But as historical conditions changed, and Peter left Jerusalem, he no longer figured as one of the Twelve: he became a roving apostle. The Twelve no longer formed a collegium at Jerusalem, so the city lost its position as hierarchical center. Given these new historical conditions, is it still possible to speak of the primacy of Peter? The New Testament texts in no way show that it is.” (page 33)

An interesting thought, it does seem that the role of the apostles was to move around rather than to stay in one place. James is the only one tradition holds stayed in one place, the rest moved about as they were needed, it was the 70 who for the most part tradition holds were placed as the bishops in the cities.

I’m hoping to tempt you to buy the book. lol

I picked up some of the writtings of St. Clement of Alexandria at the library today, so I don’t know when I’ll next be looking for a book, although I’m almost certain I haven’t read half the books I own.

In the Orthodox view, is authority transmitted through the laying on of hands only in unbroken Apostolic Succession? I’m thinking about the many forum discussions about “valid orders.”

The Orthodox don’t normally have a concept of valid vs. invalid, when it appears it is usually under duress. More important than having valid ordination is having the Orthodox Faith. As an example I give the Evangelical Orthodox, they had Bishops but there was no possible argument that could be made for the validity of their orders. When the Antiochans decided they were practicing the Orthodox Faith the issue of valid orders was quickly solved, as they were absorbed into the church the priests were validly ordained priests, and a few of the bishops retained and consecrated validly (I believe all the Bishops who qualified under Church discipline actually).
In cases where it is less clear cut, such as the Anglicans, where there is a valid argument then I don’t think it is so clear cut, but if they practiced the same faith as us an uncertainty could be solved.

Honorius was part of a recent discussion on the “Keenan Catechism.” Still trying to sort out how Honorius affected Apostolic Succession.

I would say not at all. Consecration requires a minimum of three bishops (the reason for this was so that someone couldn’t just consecrate a bunch of bishops on their own, I’m not sure if Rome still follows this), assuming that believing heresy invalidates Apostolic Succession, you’d still have the two who are still able to pass it on.

Other interesting quotes from the book about the leadership of James:
“After Peter leaves (Acts 12:17), James is the one always mentioned as head of the Church of Jerusalem.” (Page 27)

James appears to have been, and is held by tradition, to have been the head of the Church in Jerusalem, within Orthodox thought he didn’t answer to anyone in that see (partially because he was an apostle, a modern Patriarch of Jerusalem answers to his Holy Synod of Bishops).

“But the role that James played at Jerusalem, after Peter had gone, was surely very comparable to the role bishops were to play later on: a lifelong and continuous place as leader of a local church, with a group of presbyters in support. James may not have been called Bishop, but he was in fact the first monarchical bishop of a local church.” (Page 28)

This is probably very true. The Other Bishops answered to Apostles when they passed through, but James had no such person to answer to. I would disagree with the wording though, in that time presbyter and bishop (episcopos) were synonymous. Each led a single church, although he may have had assistants of similar title, I don’t know.

 

[Anna_Scott]

After receiving a few PM’s, I just want to clarify that the purpose of this thread is to better understand the Orthodox viewpoint re the “Primacy” of Peter/Keys, etc. not to debate or argue against the Orthodox position. I have questions, and I think there are others who would also benefit from this inquiry.

I welcome all comments from Orthodox forum members. Others feel free to join in with any questions you have about the Orthodox faith.

This should be a friendly thread. I’m in need of a friendly thread for a change.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I’m just making a blind post, just to give an off the cuff response, at the request of a friend.

I recall maybe a year ago, in my more mature Eastern Orthodox days, getting IM’d by a fresh, young, spunky Roman Catholic convert. We started talking and were getting along well, but of course the conversation turned invariably to: “Why didn’t you go Roman Catholic?” I gave a polite response that wasn’t negative of Roman Catholicism at all, but of course the conversation, which had gone to email, turned to the question of Matthew 16:18. To put it plainly, I tried to walk him through the focus of the entire passage of scripture (faith in Christ), quoted several early Church Fathers who focused primarily on the faith of Peter rather than Peter himself, and likewise pointed to places such as Revelation that referred to the Isaiah prophecy that supposedly spoke of Peter when in fact it was referring to Christ.

Eventually, all I kept getting back from him was Matthew 16:18 repeated over and over again, with no real response to the arguments I had put forward. Finally at some point I told him if he considered the Eastern Orthodox brothers in Christ this shouldn’t be that big of an issue for him, and with a quick agreement our conversations ended, and I’ve never spoken to him again. I still feel the same way I do about Matthew 16:18, even after hearing Roman Catholic arguments for it. I avoid talking about it online because for the most part it becomes simply like that email conversation I had a year back, and I’ve become immune to the whole issue.

That’s all I really have to say. God bless.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I’m just making a blind post, just to give an off the cuff response, at the request of a friend.

I recall maybe a year ago, in my more mature Eastern Orthodox days, getting IM’d by a fresh, young, spunky Roman Catholic convert. We started talking and were getting along well, but of course the conversation turned invariably to: “Why didn’t you go Roman Catholic?” I gave a polite response that wasn’t negative of Roman Catholicism at all, but of course the conversation, which had gone to email, turned to the question of Matthew 16:18. To put it plainly, I tried to walk him through the focus of the entire passage of scripture (faith in Christ), quoted several early Church Fathers who focused primarily on the faith of Peter rather than Peter himself, and likewise pointed to places such as Revelation that referred to the Isaiah prophecy that supposedly spoke of Peter when in fact it was referring to Christ.

Eventually, all I kept getting back from him was Matthew 16:18 repeated over and over again, with no real response to the arguments I had put forward. Finally at some point I told him if he considered the Eastern Orthodox brothers in Christ this shouldn’t be that big of an issue for him, and with a quick agreement our conversations ended, and I’ve never spoken to him again. I still feel the same way I do about Matthew 16:18, even after hearing Roman Catholic arguments for it. I avoid talking about it online because for the most part it becomes simply like that email conversation I had a year back, and I’ve become immune to the whole issue.

That’s all I really have to say. God bless.

Mr. Wolf,

I really appreciate your comments, especially with your knowledge and experience from your “Eastern Orthodox days.” They are consistent with the Orthodox posts and the book, “The Primacy of Peter.” Have you read that book, btw? Just curious.

The good news is that this thread in not for the purpose of arguing against the Orthodox position. I’m on a fact-finding mission, here. So, hopefully you won’t get e-mails of Matthew 16:18 repeated over and over again.

Peace,
Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

I really appreciate your comments, especially with your knowledge and experience from your “Eastern Orthodox days.” They are consistent with the Orthodox posts and the book, “The Primacy of Peter.” Have you read that book, btw? Just curious.

I saw that book in a catalog once, I never got it though. I have another book somewhere that goes into detail about the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I haven’t looked into it. It most likely touches on the supremacy of Peter issue though.

The good news is that this thread in not for the purpose of arguing against the Orthodox position. I’m on a fact-finding mission, here. So, hopefully you won’t get e-mails of Matthew 16:18 repeated over and over again.

Eh, I’ll probably get PM’s over it now.

 

[Anna_Scott]

I saw that book in a catalog once, I never got it though. I have another book somewhere that goes into detail about the differences between Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, but I haven’t looked into it. It most likely touches on the supremacy of Peter issue though.

Eh, I’ll probably get PM’s over it now.

Well, Mr. Wolf, you could always turn off your PM’s for 24 hrs; but then I couldn’t bug you either.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

Well, Mr. Wolf, you could always turn off your PM’s for 24 hrs; but then I couldn’t bug you either.

Anna

Sometimes it’s amusing.

Although if people wanted to really bug me, there’s always spamming my gmail account. I check that far more than I do my CAF inbox.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Sometimes it’s amusing.

Although if people wanted to really bug me, there’s always spamming my gmail account. I check that far more than I do my CAF inbox.

You’re just giving people ideas, now.

Anna

 

[Byzantine_Wolf]

You’re just giving people ideas, now.

Anna

It could lead to something amusing to do when I get home from work.

 

[Anna_Scott]

Matt 16 is written in the future tense. Matt 18:18 is in the present tense and is addressed to all of the disciples. Jesus gave them all equal authority, and that’s how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years. The Great Commission fits with this.

I’m aware of Jesus giving equal authority to bind and loose in Matt 18. However, I hadn’t considered the future tense and present tense difference between Matt 16 and Matt 18. Would you elaborate a bit more on the significance of present tense vs. future tense?

Matthew 16: 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock **I will **build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

**Matthew 18: **18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Peter’s task from Jesus was to “feed my sheep.” It was not to “govern my sheep” or “lord over my sheep” or “act as ruler over my sheep” or any such thing. It was to FEED MY SHEEP. And that is how the universal church operated for many hundreds of years, with the Bishop of Rome as an elder brother who gave advice now and then to his siblings.

Very interesting point. Christ’s command was to “feed” and “tend” His sheep. I think the word “tend” has caused some debate re what that means, exactly. Comments?

**John 21: **15When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16He said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

The “rock” could be Peter individually, or his confession. I’m ambivalent. If taken as Peter it is recognition of his role as shepherd to the shepherds, but this in the context of all of them being given equal authority from Jesus.

Any comments on the following quote? This is very similar to what my Rector has taught as part of the Anglican tradition–though he does have strong Eastern Orthodox leanings.

"The Primacy of Peter," Chapter 2, Peter’s Primacy In The New Testament And The Early Tradition, Veselin Kesich, page 57:
"For Karl Rahner, the post-resurrection experiences of Christ’s disciples are "strictly sui generis, and they belong to the very origin of the Church. No one can succeed to the unique status promised to the twelve (Lk 22:30). The apostles cannot hand over their places in a kingdom appointed to them, nor can Peter transfer his role as the rock of the first Church in Christ.

Only the church as a whole succeeds to these apostolic privileges. The apostles’ successor is the apostolic church, which possesses the fullness of apostolic tradition and with which Christ identifies himself. (Acts 9:4). Every bishop in the apostolic church who occupies the place which Peter occupied at the eucharistic gathering, and who performs the pastoral duties which Peter performed, is the successor to the apostle.

But no bishop can succeed to Peter’s unique place as a member of the twelve, as the first witness of the resurrection, and as the first head of the first assembly in Christ. Both the New Testament and the early history of the church are in full agreement on this point."

Thanks for contributing to the thread. Looking forward to further comments.
Anna

 

[scottm]

I’m aware of Jesus giving equal authority to bind and loose in Matt 18. However, I hadn’t considered the future tense and present tense difference between Matt 16 and Matt 18. Would you elaborate a bit more on the significance of present tense vs. future tense?

Matthew 16: 13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock **I will **build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.

**Matthew 18: **18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them."

Chapter and verse numbers were added in the era of the Reformation. Verses 19 and 20 of chapter 6 are part of verse 18 – they’re part of a continuous statement from Jesus. To separate verse 18 from 19 and 20 is to do injustice to the text. You’re cutting off Jesus mid-stream, and you’re not reading it the way Matthew wrote it. Plainly in that passage Jesus was talking about something that he would do later.

We should remember the closing verse of chapter 16: Jesus says that his disciples will see his glory before they die. When was that fulfilled? “Six days later” in chapter 17. Was it only Peter? No, it was Peter with two other disciples. And then more time passes, and then in chapter 18 we get back to what Jesus was talking about in chapter 16.

It makes sense that the transfiguration would occur before the passing of the keys, does it not? It makes sense that Jesus would have prepped his disciples with that talk about being the Christ before he did that thing on the mountain, and it makes sense that he would have done both before passing on his keys of authority. And to say that the other 11 apostles were not given keys to the kingdom is wholly inconsistent with their three years of discipleship with Jesus. James and John were on the mountaintop too. It wasn’t just Peter. To discard them, and say that they received no keys of authority themselves in chapter 18, is crazy.

 

[Anna_Scott]

The interesting thing here though is that though Paul received authority directly from Christ, his first instruction was to go to Peter to learn the faith. This of course certainly confirms Peter as a leader in the early Church, it also seems to imply the need for continuity.

Nine_Two,

This is an interesting issue, because there appears to be two different traditions regarding Paul’s contact/relationship with Peter and the disciples, at least in the New Testament record.

Acts Chapter 9 says Saul “attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple,” etc.

Acts 9: 26 **And when he had come to Jerusalem, he attempted to join the disciples. And they were all afraid of him, for they did not believe that he was a disciple. **27But Barnabas took him and brought him to the apostles and declared to them how on the road he had seen the Lord, who spoke to him, and how at Damascus he had preached boldly in the name of Jesus. 28So he went in and out among them at Jerusalem, preaching boldly in the name of the Lord. 29And he spoke and disputed against the Hellenists. But they were seeking to kill him. 30And when the brothers learned this, they brought him down to Caesarea and sent him off to Tarsus. 31So the church throughout all Judea and Galilee and Samaria had peace and was being built up. And walking in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it multiplied.

However, in Galatians Chapter 1, Paul emphasizes the fact that he is “an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead” (verse 1).

In verse 16, Paul said he did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did he go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before him, but went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

Paul said that after three years, he went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days (verse 18).

**Galatians 1: **
Greeting
1 Paul, an apostle— not from men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from the dead— 2 and all the brothers who are with me,

To the churches of Galatia:

3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, 4 who gave himself for our sins to deliver us from the present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father, 5 to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen.

6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 not that there is another one, but there are some who trouble you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed. 9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.

10For am I now seeking the approval of man, or of God? Or am I trying to please man? If I were still trying to please man, I would not be a servant of Christ.

11 For I would have you know, brothers, that the gospel that was preached by me is not man’s gospel. 12 For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. 13 For you have heard of my former life in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God violently and tried to destroy it. 14 And I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people, so extremely zealous was I for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, 16 was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.

**18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. **19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother. 20 (In what I am writing to you, before God, I do not lie!) 21 Then I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was still unknown in person to the churches of Judea that are in Christ. 23 They only were hearing it said, “He who used to persecute us is now preaching the faith he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God because of me.

Any thoughts on this apparent discrepancy from the Orthodox standpoint?

Anna

 

[Nine_Two]

I have no idea what the Church itself says on those verses, Anna, but I don’t see them as contradicting each other. Acts gives no time frame between his conversion and his going to Jerusalem, it speaks of his having to escape and then jumps to his arrival in Jerusalem.

Lets be honest, if you were trying to kill people for what they believed and then discovered they were right you probably wouldn’t be in the greatest hurry to consult with them either.

But as I said, I have no idea what the Church teaches on those two, this is merely my opinion.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The idea of the Rock being the CONFESSION Peter made and not being Peter himself is definitely well-attested in the early church. Augustine stands out as one of the main proponents of the idea of the confession being the Rock:

Peter then was true; or rather was Christ true in Peter? Now when the Lord Jesus Christ would, He abandoned Peter, and Peter was found a man; but when it so pleased the Lord Jesus Christ, He filled Peter, and Peter was found true. The Rock (Petra) made Peter true, for the Rock was Christ– St. Augustine, A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), Volume 20, Sermon 97.3, p. 686, (Sermon 147, Benedictine Edition).

Peter had already said to him, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ He had already heard, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the underworld shall not conquer her’ (Mt 16:16-18). Such faith was drowned when the Lord was crucified. Peter, you see, only believed he was the Son of God up to the time he saw him hanging on the tree, the time he saw him fixed there with nails, the time he saw him dead, the time he saw him buried. Then he lost what he held. Where’s the rock? Where’s the immovable solidity of the rock? Christ himself was the rock, while Peter, Rocky, was only named from the rock. That’s why the rock rose again, to make Peter solid and strong; because Peter would have perished, if the rock hadn’t lived–St. Augustine, John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City, 1993) Sermons, Volume III/7, Sermon 244.1, pp. 95-96.

 

[Nine_Two]

Reviewing my post though, it seemed my memory of the verse was off though.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

This quote from Ambrose just paints such a powerful picture of an Orthodox style of Church polity and Orthodox understanding of Peter that it’s just amazing:

**He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank…**This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary–St. Ambrose, 52The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C.: Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord 4.32-5.35, pp. 230-1.