Who is 'the Rock'?

[trogiah]

Montalban:

Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. You’ve touched upon some interesting points. The change in the status of Constantinople shows that the ‘prestige’ or honour of a city’s bishopric could change - because Constantinople leapt over the ‘prestige’ of older cities such as Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem

Thus…

“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.” [1]

Note on the changing of the status of Constantinople…​

[1] ccel.org/fathers/NPNF2-14/4chalcedon/canons.htm

I must admit to having very limited knowledge of the history involved here, but I am wondering - who is it that is declaring that there is a “New Rome” Are they doing it on God’s authority? I don’t ask because I am sure the answer is no but because I think the question should be clearly addressed.

Again I must admit ignorance about something very important in this discussion. Why was there a split between the “Church of the East and the Church of the West.” Between (apparently) the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople. The only characterization I recall of this split was that each Bishop excommunicated the other and went there seperate ways. I am sure there was much build up to that event.

In any event, a church divided is a scandal to the world. Hopefully we can all see that “what seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than what unites us.”

peace

-Jim

 

[Montalban]

trogiah:

I must admit to having very limited knowledge of the history involved here, but I am wondering - who is it that is declaring that there is a “New Rome”

G’day Jim. The council are reflecting what was then a phrase gaining currency. Constantine created a new capital in the east on the site of the city of Byzantium. He named it after himself; Constantinople. He made this a “New Rome” (trivia: it also has ‘seven hills’).

trogiah:

Are they doing it on God’s authority? I don’t ask because I am sure the answer is no but because I think the question should be clearly addressed.

God’s authority was given to the Apostles who were allowed to “do things in My (Jesus’) name”. The Church continued, and still continues to act in this capacity.

trogiah:

Again I must admit ignorance about something very important in this discussion. Why was there a split between the “Church of the East and the Church of the West.” Between (apparently) the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Constantinople. The only characterization I recall of this split was that each Bishop excommunicated the other and went there seperate ways. I am sure there was much build up to that event.

Difference arose in the understanding of many things; the nature of the Trinity (see the ‘filioque’ controversy), the nature of Church government (which is to us a relection on the Trinity issue), and also how to approach spiritual matters in general. We claim to operate by ‘experience’, and claim that the western church operates by ‘sepculation’.

trogiah:

In any event, a church divided is a scandal to the world. Hopefully we can all see that “what seperates us as believers in Christ is far less than what unites us.”
peace
-Jim

Ecumenicalism is not something I look forward to… not if it means compromising the truth of Christ as handed down to our Church.

 

[Ghosty]

So a(b)=c is true but c=a(b) is false??? I wasn’t good at maths at school

Not sure I understand your point here, though I’m sure you have one. I’m saying that stating that the powers were given to the Apostles as a group in no way negates the fact that Peter also has that power as an individual. The power belongs to the Apostles corporately, not each individually. Only Peter has the distinction of having the same power vested in him individually. This is why the Church considers Concilar decrees equally binding with Ex Cathedra decrees. One is in no way superior to the other.

What is telling is you taking this and reading a lot more into it… I know this because when I look at commentaries on the Apostles, such as I’ve cited, they tend to disagree with you.

I was simply pointing out that you were leaving out the very part of the citation others were refering to. I’ve made no claim as to the weight of the citation. Regardless, unless you can show either a Scriptural citation, or a citation from the Fathers, that indicates that all Apostles were spoken to in this manner, you don’t really have a point against the others’ claims. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles as a group, certainly, but you’ve shown nothing that I see to indicate that they were given the same authority individually as Peter was. Even your quote of Cyprian’s refers to the Apostles corporately as having an equal power, which is exactly what the Catholic Church claims.

You need to address the point that either a) Peter wasn’t given an individual commision of power (something that I think you’d be hard pressed to do given Scripture), or b) that the other Apostles were also individually, and not corporately, given the authority of Peter. Unless you can do that, you’ve not taken down the claims of the Catholic Church.

It was given to him, first, but later to all the Apostles.

Such as…

Yes, that is the Catholic position. Cyprien is presenting exactly what the Church teaches. To use your bolded sections:

And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…

Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power…

This quote speaks of the rest of the Apostles as a group possessing the same power and honor as Peter as an individual. You can differ with the interpretation of the language, but the wording certainly supports the Catholic interpretation perfectly well. If the Church didn’t agree 100% with these words of Cyprien, we would not consider Ecumenical Councils to be binding on the whole Church (including the Pope), but we do. Notice that Cyprien does not say “each of the apostles was also the same as was Peter”, he says “the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter”; that is a very significant difference when it comes to this debate. The former would be individually, and would support your claim, the latter (the real one) is corporate, and seems to support the Catholic position to a greater degree than it supports yours.

The language doesn’t seem to be conclusive either way, but to argue that it rules out the Catholic position appears to be in error.

An odd argument to make. You both want to argue against the association with Peter (that he is the rock), but for it, that he is singled out. How then is he singled out? A unique theory awaits the telling.

(Peter is not the foundation of the Church, his faith is, hence ‘the rock’ issue is important - but I await your details of this everything at once argument)

My point is simply this: whether the “rock” that the Church is being built upon is faith, Christ, or a mountain, the fact remains that Simon’s name, and ONLY Simon’s name, is changed to identify with this “rock”. Jesus could have named each Apostle “rock” (Simon Peter, James Peter, ect.), but He didn’t. He singled out one Apostle to be identified with the “rock”, hence “where goes Peter, so goes the Church”. No matter what the “rock” is, the fact that only Simon’s name is changed to match this “rock” is a significant point that can’t be easily brushed aside.

Names are significant, in many cases (such as with Adam and Eve) they are fundamental to identity. I simply can’t understand how this name change of Simon’s, in the same breath that the word his name is changed to is identified as the foundation of the Church, has no significant meaning to Simon’s identity. Names don’t get changed on a whim, and they certianly don’t get changed in such a significant exchange as an after thought. We know that Simon was thenceforth known as Kephas; Rock became his identity. I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explaination of this beyond the Catholic one. If you’ve got one, please share it, because, as a convert to the Church in the first place, Truth is always welcome.

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Not sure I understand your point here, though I’m sure you have one. I’m saying that stating that the powers were given to the Apostles as a group in no way negates the fact that Peter also has that power as an individual. The power belongs to the Apostles corporately, not each individually. Only Peter has the distinction of having the same power vested in him individually. This is why the Church considers Councillor decrees equally binding with Ex Cathedra decrees. One is in no way superior to the other.

I agree, I think . If we say that Peter was individually conferred power, yes. He was the first to realise Jesus was the Christ. Do you believe that makes him superior in power? I don’t believe that he is, and this then is why I don’t believe he ever possessed supremacy… in the sense of someone directing others. This is evidence from Acts 15 wherein all the Apostles, in meeting each was respectful of each other. It is also evident from above that Paul (who rebuked Peter) was able to teach with the same ‘unity’ as the rest of the Apostles. Which is why the ‘popes’ of Rome aren’t counted from Peter.

Montalban:

What is telling is you taking this and reading a lot more into it… I know this because when I look at commentaries on the Apostles, such as I’ve cited, they tend to disagree with you.

Ghosty:

I was simply pointing out that you were leaving out the very part of the citation others were referring to. I’ve made no claim as to the weight of the citation. Regardless, unless you can show either a Scriptural citation, or a citation from the Fathers, that indicates that all Apostles were spoken to in this manner, you don’t really have a point against the others’ claims. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles as a group, certainly, but you’ve shown nothing that I see to indicate that they were given the same authority individually as Peter was. Even your quote of Cyprian’s refers to the Apostles corporately as having an equal power, which is exactly what the Catholic Church claims.

What does this matter? Having ‘the same powers’ means having ‘the same powers’. Think of the parable about the workers in the vineyard who were paid a wage, and as the day progressed those who were hired later were still paid the same wage. They were given the same amount, because it was God’s choosing to do so. The same amount equals the same amount. Even if some were paid first.
“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).(Whelton, p33). (emphasis added). His ‘primacy’ thus comes from being first - to be Christian.
This is reflected in Tertullian’s work…
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!
-Tertullian, The Prescription Against Heretics - Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith quoted at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-03/anf03-24.htm#P3125_1133921
Thus he doesn’t consign a church founded by John as any less because of this than one founded by Peter and Paul, because each Apostle was equal - which I must mention again, is evident from the proceedings in Acts 15, wherein Peter was not the boss.

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

You need to address the point that either a) Peter wasn’t given an individual commission of power (something that I think you’d be hard pressed to do given Scripture), or b) that the other Apostles were also individually, and not corporately, given the authority of Peter. Unless you can do that, you’ve not taken down the claims of the Catholic Church.

I see, you think that they got some kind of ‘group’ power, that they could only act as a group? Is that what you’re saying? Odd then that all the Fathers that I have quoted say that the declaration of faith of the person, not the person himself, was ‘the rock’. It is for this reason Peter can claim to be ‘chief’ because he was the first to declare for Christ. Did this mean that he was the ‘leader’ in an organisational role? Acts 15 would suggest not, wherein James presided.
Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.” (Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). Whelton, p34 also at ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-95.htm#P6226_1969381.
Cyprian is clearly defining ‘primacy’ as being only ‘first of faith’, which as noted ‘the rock’ referred not to the person Peter, but his declaration of faith.

Montalban:

It was given to him, first, but later to all the Apostles.
Such as…

Ghosty:

Yes, that is the Catholic position. Cyprian is presenting exactly what the Church teaches. To use your bolded sections:

Thus when Paul became ‘Christian’ his ‘power’ did not come through Peter…
“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25). Ibid, pp31-32 quoted also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-43.htm#P4186_1789723

Montalban:

And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power…
Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power…

Ghosty:

This quote speaks of the rest of the Apostles as a group possessing the same power and honor as Peter as an individual.

Then you assume that they hold it only as a group. I have already noted that John Chrysostomon singles out both Peter and John as holders of ‘the keys’.
St. Cyprian said in the opening address of the Council of Carthage…“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” Whelton, p34

Thus each individual bishop is the ‘head’ of the church within his own diocese. And as also noted earlier, this is what ‘Catholic’ first meant; complete; the church as headed by a bishop. And this is also evidenced by the ‘Easter controversy’ that Pope St. Victor raised. (see Appendix below)

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

You can differ with the interpretation of the language, but the wording certainly supports the Catholic interpretation perfectly well. If the Church didn’t agree 100% with these words of Cyprian, we would not consider Ecumenical Councils to be binding on the whole Church (including the Pope), but we do. Notice that Cyprian does not say “each of the apostles was also the same as was Peter”, he says “the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter”; that is a very significant difference when it comes to this debate. The former would be individually, and would support your claim, the latter (the real one) is corporate, and seems to support the Catholic position to a greater degree than it supports yours.

The language doesn’t seem to be conclusive either way, but to argue that it rules out the Catholic position appears to be in error.

Yes, but he didn’t say “The rest of the Apostles only combined were the equal of Peter”, and as I’ve shown on a number of occasions, the rest, were just as important, even if individually.

Even when another Church addresses the Roman church, it is not necessary to praise it as the ‘seat of Peter’ alone…
And that they both suffered martyrdom at the same time is stated by Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in his epistle to the Romans, in the following words: “You have thus by such an admonition bound together the planting of Peter and of Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both of them planted and likewise taught us in our Corinth. And they taught together in like manner in Italy, and suffered martyrdom at the same time.” I have quoted these things in order that the truth of the history might be still more confirmed.

• EUSEBIUS. Ecclesiastical history XXV:8
  ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-01/Npnf2-01-07.htm#P938_461218

Montalban:

An odd argument to make. You both want to argue against the association with Peter (that he is the rock), but for it, that he is singled out. How then is he singled out? A unique theory awaits the telling.

(Peter is not the foundation of the Church, his faith is, hence ‘the rock’ issue is important - but I await your details of this everything at once argument)

Ghosty:

My point is simply this: whether the “rock” that the Church is being built upon is faith, Christ, or a mountain, the fact remains that Simon’s name, and ONLY Simon’s name, is changed to identify with this “rock”. Jesus could have named each Apostle “rock” (Simon Peter, James Peter, ect.), but He didn’t. He singled out one Apostle to be identified with the “rock”, hence “where goes Peter, so goes the Church”. No matter what the “rock” is, the fact that only Simon’s name is changed to match this “rock” is a significant point that can’t be easily brushed aside.

Yes, but the great thinkers of the church said that the rock is Peter’s faith. So, Peter changing his name is simply to be the rock of faith. (see below)

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Names are significant, in many cases (such as with Adam and Eve) they are fundamental to identity. I simply can’t understand how this name change of Simon’s, in the same breath that the word his name is changed to is identified as the foundation of the Church, has no significant meaning to Simon’s identity. Names don’t get changed on a whim, and they certainly don’t get changed in such a significant exchange as an after thought. We know that Simon was thenceforth known as Kephas; Rock became his identity. I’ve yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of this beyond the Catholic one. If you’ve got one, please share it, because, as a convert to the Church in the first place, Truth is always welcome.

??? You simply have to ignore everything stated before you, from Augustine, Ambrose, Cyprian etc who state it wasn’t the person. If you want more on the ‘name’ of Peter, look to Augustine…
“Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.
“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25). Whelton, pp31-32 quoted also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-06/npnf1-06-43.htm#P4186_1789723
Appendix
The Easter Controversy
The Church in Asia Minor celebrated Easter on a different day from the rest of the Christian churches, and although he initiated a synod to investigate, this was done by request, not command. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus wrote to St. Victor “Victor and the Roman
Church”, (Eusebius – v. 24). [1]

Eusebius further says “There is extant to this day a letter from those who attended a conference in Palestine presided over by Bishop Theophilus of Caesarea and Narcissus of Jerusalem; and from those at Rome a similar one, arising out of the same controversy, which names Victor as bishop. There are others from the Pontic bishops, presided over by Palmas as the senior; from the Gallic province, over which Irenaeus was archbishop, and from the bishops in Osrhoene and the cities of that region. There are personal letters from Bishop Bacchyllus of Corinth and very many more, who voiced the same opinion and judgment and gave the same vote. All these laid down one single rule the rule already stated.” [2]
Thus the decree came from the conference, not from the Pope. Polycrates disputed the council, however. Eusebius said “Thereupon Victor, head of the Roman Church attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian diocese, together with the neighbouring churches, on the ground of heterodoxy.” [3]
NOTE: Attempted He failed because “…this was not tot the taste of all the bishops: they replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and unity and love towards his neighbours. We still possess the words of these men who very sternly rebuked Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who wrote on behalf of the Christians for whom he was responsible for in Gaul.”[4] This hardly suggest universal over-lordship as understood by the early church… or a need to wait for the ‘power’ of the descendant of Peter.

Notes on the Easter Controversy.​

[1] Whelton, p45.
[2] Ibid, p45.
[3] Ibid, pp46-47.
Note that the Catholic Church regards Eusebius as the “Father of Church History” (newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm)
[4] Whelton, Ibid.

 

[trogiah]

Montalban:

G’day Jim. The council are reflecting what was then a phrase gaining currency. Constantine created a new capital in the east on the site of the city of Byzantium. He named it after himself; Constantinople. He made this a “New Rome” (trivia: it also has ‘seven hills’).

God’s authority was given to the Apostles who were allowed to “do things in My (Jesus’) name”. The Church continued, and still continues to act in this capacity.

Difference arose in the understanding of many things; the nature of the Trinity (see the ‘filioque’ controversy), the nature of Church government (which is to us a relection on the Trinity issue), and also how to approach spiritual matters in general. We claim to operate by ‘experience’, and claim that the western church operates by ‘sepculation’…

Thanks for filling in a few gaps. I have to admit I have no idea what that last word means.

Montalban:

Ecumenicalism is not something I look forward to… not if it means compromising the truth of Christ as handed down to our Church.

Here I do feel confident about what the right understanding should be. Which truth do you fear compromising? The truth that Jesus reiterated over and over was that his disciples should be willing to forgive one another. Much of this entire conversation seems to be about power. Who really has the power. I am reminded of Jesus chastising James and John for seeking places of prominence. Rather they should be like the child.

Jesus prayed for unity and encouraged all who listened to seek understanding of God’s kingdom. He didn’t seem as concerned about who sat in the chair of Moses and I don’t believe he would feel any different about the one who sits in the chair of Peter.

The division between Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches runs deep into history. Someday I think I will try to understand it better. Whatever the cause,whatever the issues that seperate the sides, I am quite certain the values of unity, humility, and love of God will matter more than understanding the nature of the Trinity or of church government.

Anyway sorry to unload on you. Your attitude toward ecumenism is shared (regretably from my standpoint) by many Roman Catholics. It bothers me where ever I see it.

peace

-Jim

 

[sjangelini]

Montalban,

Just because John Chrystostom said that John had the keys (the context of which I have yet to explore) does not make it a true or authoritative source at all. Certainly this conclusion does not represent the consensus of the faith of the fathers. Biblically, Peter was the only apostles to receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven, is that difficult for you to concede? Also while many Fathers of the early church said the rock was Peter’s faith, many also stated that the rock was Peter himself which is something that is difficult to ignore. You also have the burden of proving that the rock cannot be Peter’s faith and Peter himself at the same time. As an Orthodox do you afford the Pope any primacy at all, as primer inter pares?

 

[Ghosty]

Montalban: You keep coming back to the “rock” issue, and what the rock is, but you’re ignoring the point that regardless of what it is, Peter alone is identified with it. The Catholic position is not that Peter is the faith, that is absurd. Our position is that Peter is personally, and exceptionally, identified with the faith. The fact that Jesus Himself re-names Simon to identify him with the rock is significant. That kind of re-naming does not happen without important reasons, and in this case it seems to be that Simon’s individual identity is being changed to indicate that he’s no longer just some fisherman, he is now synonymous with the foundation of the Church. This doesn’t mean he IS the foundation of the Church literally, as that is Christ, but that he is to be identified with that foundation. When paired with an understanding of Isaiah 22 and the role of the king’s steward, and the papal title “Vicar of Christ”, this all fits together.

As for the group powers, you seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the Catholic position regarding the Pope. We do not view him as some kind of super-power who has any sacramental elevation above other bishops, nor do we view the position of Pope to be superior to the Council of Bishops. For example, it was the Council of Bishops, not the Pope, that declared Papal Infallibility as a doctrine of the Church, and all popes are bound by that decision, just as they are all other Conciliar decrees. Your example of Acts 15 shows nothing more than a binding Council, one that Catholics fully recognize and support. For us a Council is not merely some puppet show in support of the Pope’s decisions, nor is it merely a discussion forum held for the benefit of the Pope, but rather a very real and binding manifestation of Apostalic Authority, binding on all faithful including the Pope.

The Council binds and looses with the same authority as Peter does as an individual, one is not “superior” to the other, they are the same. The only difference is that Peter/Pope can act individually with the authority that the Council holds collectively. These two are not at odds with eachother, but part of the unity of the Apostalic Authority; the power of the Council is meaningless if the power of Peter as an individual is meaningless, because it is the same power as you yourself have pointed out. The Pope can be counseled against in a Council, and corrected by anyone; this has happened numerous times in history. The royal honors of speaking first, of sitting in a certain place, of being addressed with certain titles are all things that can come and go, and are not tied to the Papacy per se, hence the lack of objection to the change in status of Constantinople. To deny the authority of Peter as an individual, however, is to deny the authority of the whole Council of Bishops, something Catholics refuse to do.

You seem to think that we Catholics view the Pope as something more than the Council, as some kind of “super-authority”, but we simply don’t. We just recognize that the authority of binding and loosing was given both corporately and to a single individual, and we will honor that authority bestowed by Christ. We will not diminish one for the sake of the other, as both are from Christ, and indeed are the same authority.

God bless!

 

[Montalban]

sjangelini:

Montalban,

Just because John Chrystostom said that John had the keys (the context of which I have yet to explore) does not make it a true or authoritative source at all. Certainly this conclusion does not represent the consensus of the faith of the fathers. Biblically, Peter was the only apostles to receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven, is that difficult for you to concede?

You make a ‘just-so’ statment about the ‘consensus of the faith of the fathers’, leading me to attempt to summerise all that has gone before your post. (which does not negate the need to read the thread). And, before you say you’ve already done so, I’ve included first up two quotes not yet used.
“Each local church was under the complete authority of its bishop, elected for life by the clergy and representatives of the laity of the see, with the consent of the neighboring bishops, one of whom would consecrate him, so that the apostolic succession from Christ’s disciples would be maintained. The charismatic equality of all bishops has never been challenged in Eastern Christendom; but in the later part of the third century, in the period between the persecutions of Valerian and of Diocletian, when the number of Christians rose sharply, it became the custom of bishops to meet now and then in conclave in the local metropolis, under the presidency of the metropolitan bishop, who thus gradually obtained an undefined administrative and even spiritual authority over his fellows.”[1]

This administration tended to follow the pre-existing lines of Roman provincial administration. And likewise the conclaves followed the Roman pattern…

“Bishops adopted for many of their councils the official senatorial formulae of convocation. Like the Senate the council was a deliberate assembly, each bishop having equal rights in the discussion.”[2]

In Summary, many of the great Christian writers of the early church believed that the declaration of ‘rock’ by Jesus referred to Peter’s call of faith, not the man himself.[3]. Thus Peter had primacy of ‘faith’; he was the first to declare his faith. This did not mean he exerted any ‘power’ over the other Apostles [4]. This is demonstated in Acts 15 wherein the Apostles met under the presidency of James (because he was bishop of Jerusalem). It is evidenced by the Ecumenical Councils (see two quotes above), and by the fact that all such councils were called by the Emperor, not the Pope. One was even called in defiance of the Pope.

Notes

---

[1] Runciman, S., (1977), “The Byzantine Theocracy”, (Cambridge University Press), p8.

[2] Davis, L. D., (1983), “The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787): Their History and Theology”, (Michael Glazier Inc; Collegevile, Minnesota), p23.
[3] Ambrose: On the Incarnation
Augustine: Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25; Homily X on John V. 1-3
Cyprian: De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5; Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics
Cyril of Alexandria: Of the Trinity 4th Book; letter to Nestorius
Hilary: Second Book on the Trinity
Jerome: 6th Book on Matthew
[4] Ambrose: De Incarnatiionis Dominicae Sacramento 4:32
Augustine: Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul
John Chrysostomon: Homily III on Acts 1:12

sjangelini:

Also while many Fathers of the early church said the rock was Peter’s faith, many also stated that the rock was Peter himself which is something that is difficult to ignore. You also have the burden of proving that the rock cannot be Peter’s faith and Peter himself at the same time.

This seems to negate you belief in ‘consensus’, in that you are now acknowledging some said it was but his faith. Here’s a bit of information about a survey of early church fathers commentaries[A] which shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

Endnote on Consensus.
[A] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… (see also Appendix A) to determine how they interpreted these words. Also
tecmalta.org/tft305.htm

sjangelini:

As an Orthodox do you afford the Pope any primacy at all, as primer inter pares?

The current Pope is, as far as Orthodoxy is concerned unable to have any primacy because he is in schism with the church founded by Jesus Christ.

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Montalban: You keep coming back to the “rock” issue, and what the rock is, but you’re ignoring the point that regardless of what it is, Peter alone is identified with it. The Catholic position is not that Peter is the faith, that is absurd. Our position is that Peter is personally, and exceptionally, identified with the faith. The fact that Jesus Himself re-names Simon to identify him with the rock is significant. That kind of re-naming does not happen without important reasons, and in this case it seems to be that Simon’s individual identity is being changed to indicate that he’s no longer just some fisherman, he is now synonymous with the foundation of the Church. This doesn’t mean he IS the foundation of the Church literally, as that is Christ, but that he is to be identified with that foundation. When paired with an understanding of Isaiah 22 and the role of the king’s steward, and the papal title “Vicar of Christ”, this all fits together.

As for the group powers, you seem to have a serious misunderstanding of the Catholic position regarding the Pope. We do not view him as some kind of super-power who has any sacramental elevation above other bishops, nor do we view the position of Pope to be superior to the Council of Bishops. For example, it was the Council of Bishops, not the Pope, that declared Papal Infallibility as a doctrine of the Church, and all popes are bound by that decision, just as they are all other Conciliar decrees. Your example of Acts 15 shows nothing more than a binding Council, one that Catholics fully recognize and support. For us a Council is not merely some puppet show in support of the Pope’s decisions, nor is it merely a discussion forum held for the benefit of the Pope, but rather a very real and binding manifestation of Apostalic Authority, binding on all faithful including the Pope.

The Council binds and looses with the same authority as Peter does as an individual, one is not “superior” to the other, they are the same. The only difference is that Peter/Pope can act individually with the authority that the Council holds collectively. These two are not at odds with eachother, but part of the unity of the Apostalic Authority; the power of the Council is meaningless if the power of Peter as an individual is meaningless, because it is the same power as you yourself have pointed out. The Pope can be counseled against in a Council, and corrected by anyone; this has happened numerous times in history. The royal honors of speaking first, of sitting in a certain place, of being addressed with certain titles are all things that can come and go, and are not tied to the Papacy per se, hence the lack of objection to the change in status of Constantinople. To deny the authority of Peter as an individual, however, is to deny the authority of the whole Council of Bishops, something Catholics refuse to do.

You seem to think that we Catholics view the Pope as something more than the Council, as some kind of “super-authority”, but we simply don’t. We just recognize that the authority of binding and loosing was given both corporately and to a single individual, and we will honor that authority bestowed by Christ. We will not diminish one for the sake of the other, as both are from Christ, and indeed are the same authority.

God bless!

Apologise for brief answer due to time constraints.

Your sentiment about what Catholic ‘belief’ is doesn’t ring true because only one individual can speak infallibly, not all. So one person does have ‘power’ above and beyond the rest.

 

[Ghosty]

Your sentiment about what Catholic ‘belief’ is doesn’t ring true because only one individual can speak infallibly, not all. So one person does have ‘power’ above and beyond the rest.

Actually, all CAN and DO speak infallibly, but as a group. There are three levels of infallible Magisterium: Ex Cathedra statements by the Pope, decrees by Ecumenical Councils, and universal tradition that has been taught since the time of the Apostles. Furthermore, individual bishops do indeed speak infallibly when they speak in union with the Church (magisterium ordinarium). This is a fundamental aspect of the Catholic doctrine of infallibility. None of the quotes you’ve cited, except possibly the one about John also possessing the keys (which stands out for how contrary it is to all other quotes from the Fathers on the subject) indicate that the other Apostles as individuals received the same commission that Simon bar Jonah did.

The infallibility of the Pope is not due to any special ordination or power of the person, but because of the virtue of the unique, individual calling of Peter. He is still an Apostle, and he does not possess a unique ordination (nor do his successors, as they are all bishops). You believe in the power of the Council because of the words of Jesus, and so do we. The difference is that we don’t ignore the words of Jesus to Peter just because He also addressed the Apostles as a whole later on. Jesus easily could have addressed all of the Apostles at once, and never have singled out Peter, but that’s not what happened at all. The Catholic Church simply refuses to disregard the very individual language used by Jesus in addressing Peter, and the very changing of this man’s name to identify with the foundation of the Church.

This is not because we are interested in any kind of perverse power play, it’s because we see no cause for simply writing off the individual addressing and renaming of Peter that is plainly evident in Scripture, even in the original Greek. I myself am a convert, a former atheist who came to the faith via Judaism. I have no innate cultural loyalty to Rome or the Roman Church.

The fact is that the Catholic Church (which is comprised of many Churches, not just the Roman one) is the only Apostalic Tradition that gives a satisfactory answer to the question of why Peter was spoken to individually, and alone had his name changed to identify with the foundation of the Faith. If the Orthodox had even come close to addressing this question, I might have joined (one of) the Orthodox Communions. All I see, however, is an attempt to undermine the Catholic argument without putting forth any substantial counter-claim. I see cultural arrogance on all sides, but only the Catholic side is providing an answer in addition to challenges.

This question deserves an answer, not a run-around. You need to explain why Peter, and Peter alone, was renamed to identify with the Rock of Faith, why he alone among the Apostles was given an individual address in regards to authority, why he is singled out time and time again among the Apostles for good and for ill, and other nagging questions. Simply saying “all the Apostles have that authority” doesn’t answer why only Simon’s name is changed, and saying that the rock refers to the Faith and not the person of Simon does not answer why he was singled out as an individual, despite the fact that the Apostles as a group had identified Jesus as the Son of God in the previous chapters of Matthew (14:33).

In short, why should I, as a truth seeker, take your claims seriously when all you can provide is a few quotes from Church Fathers that just as easily back up the Catholic claims and doctrine? If you have more, please provide it. I’m not trying to be polemical, as I consider the Orthodox position to be absolutely worthy of consideration; I just haven’t seen a solid formulation of the Orthodox position that actually addresses the underlying questions that led to the answer that the Catholic Church has given.

 

[Tim_Hayes]

montalban, your whole thesis as is the orthodox view in total is ruined by the fact that Jesus changed Simon’s name to ROCK.

As soon as that was done it signified something special about Simon himself and as the story goes on etc we know what happens.

The fact that it was changed to ROCK specifically can not be lost and everything, and that is everything that relates to this total arguement MUST be taken in line with the renameing of Simon as ROCK.

Tell us what is the insignificance of Simon being called ROCK and by that I means insignificance because for you to make the arguments you do mean that changing his name to ROCK was just an idiosyncrecy of Christ and actually did not mean anything.

 

[Ghosty]

Tell us what is the insignificance of Simon being called ROCK and by that I means insignificance because for you to make the arguments you do mean that changing his name to ROCK was just an idiosyncrecy of Christ and actually did not mean anything.

Precisely. No alternative is being offered, and this extreme event in Scripture is reduced to mere idiosyncracy on the part of God Himself. Was God also being idiosyncratic when he changed Abram’s name to Abraham (“father of many”)? How about when Jacob’s name was changed to Israel (“you have struggled with God”)? Name changes are not minor things, and in Scripture they represent a fundamental change in the person’s identity, usually as it relates to the world at large.

The Church does not say that Peter IS the Church, but we do say that his name was changed to identify him with, not as, the foundation of the Church. If that’s not significant, we need a very solid reason why.

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

Who really is ‘the Rock’ of Matthew 16?
The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader. That, because he was in this unique position, the office of Papacy is also the leader of all the churches.
This claim stems in part from Jesus saying “On this rock, I will build my Church”; Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church. But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

You write “The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader” and Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church"

The Catholic understanding of Peter being the “Rock” in itself does not confer any power or authority over the Church. That authority is seen by Catholics as coming from the “Keys” being given to Peter in Matthew 16 and the use of the Greek “poimaino” in John 21:16

Christ in his threefold commission to Peter to feed his sheep and lambs in John 21:15 and v17 for Feed the Greek word is “bosko” which means to feed or in this case to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church, a task falling equally on the twelve… However in V15 the Greek word translated “feed” is “poimaino” which has a meaning in addition to “bosko” of that of governing/ to rule over in this case the Church.

This understanding that Peter was set over the other apostles and therefore authority over the Church has support in the Eastern Fathers

**St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387): “**Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)

Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)

St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):

“Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles.” (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363):

“Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church,’” (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)

Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.): Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):
He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)

Pax

Brian

 

[Brian_Ingram]

Montalban:

Who really is ‘the Rock’ of Matthew 16?
A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

Again who is the rock has no bearing on Peter being leader of the Apostles or any papal commission. Also your conclusions are a classic example of statistics being used to reach erroneous conclusions.

If forty-four thought it related to Peter confession of faith then it has to do with Peter personally and him alone, just as you’re personal faith is yours alone. So it is more correct to tie it in with Peter as the Rock figure 17+44=61

Also in the Fathers it is common for them simultaneously to hold that Christ is the rock and that Peter was the rock the Church was built on and that Peter sure faith made him the rock the Church was built on. .

Just as St. John Chrysostom clearly says that Christ gave Peter the Keys but also that the Apostle John holds them.
"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)
For the son of thunder, (the Apostle John) the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, ” (St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John).

What St Chrysostom in his first homily is saying is not in contradiction to what he said in De Eleemos, or of the Catholic understanding of the Keys

From the Catholic Catechism

**981 **After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles “so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations.” The apostles and their successors carry out this “ministry of reconciliation,” not only by announcing to men God’s forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ’s blood and the Holy Spirit’s action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.

The Keys where given to Peter and Peter alone. However those in union with him share in those powers.

Pax

Brian

 

[Montalban]

Ghosty:

Precisely. No alternative is being offered, and this extreme event in Scripture is reduced to mere idiosyncracy on the part of God Himself. Was God also being idiosyncratic when he changed Abram’s name to Abraham (“father of many”)? How about when Jacob’s name was changed to Israel (“you have struggled with God”)? Name changes are not minor things, and in Scripture they represent a fundamental change in the person’s identity, usually as it relates to the world at large.

The Church does not say that Peter IS the Church, but we do say that his name was changed to identify him with, not as, the foundation of the Church. If that’s not significant, we need a very solid reason why.

You have said that Peter by himself is the equal of all the Apostles put together, something so far only proven by your re-stating it. (You’ve offered no Church Father to support your stance).

However even this would not be that significant for two major reasons
i) a) Peter wasn’t acknowledge leader
b) nor the first Pope (see quotes above)*
and
ii) other personages from the pages of history have been equated to the whole of the Apostles.
“The Holy and Glorious Sovereign, the Equal of the Apostles Helena”
mliles.com/melkite/sthelena.shtml
(this is Helena the mother of Constantine, who is also accorded the title Isapostolos).
Equal-of-the-Apostles Emperor Constantine desired to build God’s churches on the Christian holy places in Palestine, the places of the birth, suffering, and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ and others, and to find the Cross on which the Saviour was crucified. His mother, the Equal-of-the Apostles St. Helen, took upon herself the task of fulfilling the Emperor’s wishes with great joy.
orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/cross.shtml

Thus your theory is highly sinuous. It grants to one See founded by Peter some inherent role that can be passed on from generation to generation not because Peter founded it first, (nor likely last), but because he founded Rome which attests that it inherited this special place from Peter, alone. Which is not yet backed up by you with any evidence, and is already disputed by me because of
a) evidence from Peter’s role in the Council in Jerusalem (itself attested by his behaviour in Acts 15, and various already cited Church Fathers)
and
b) by Church history; none of the 7 Ecumenical Councils were called by the Pope,** they were all held in the east, dominated by the emperor. The fact that the Pope was largely ignored when he proclaimed excommunications during the Easter Controversy (see St. Victor case cited in a post above), etc.

*This is further problematical because my own church, the Antiochian one was founded by Peter BEFORE Rome. Sure, you can invent a waiver that says only the church that Peter founded last was to have gained some kind of special privileges (assuming that he didn’t leave Rome and found churches in Spain).

**One in fact called against his express wishes.

 

[Montalban]

Montalban:

Who really is ‘the Rock’ of Matthew 16?
The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader. That, because he was in this unique position, the office of Papacy is also the leader of all the churches.

This claim stems in part from Jesus saying “On this rock, I will build my Church”; Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church. But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

Brian Ingram:

You write “The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader” and Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church"

The Catholic understanding of Peter being the “Rock” in itself does not confer any power or authority over the Church. That authority is seen by Catholics as coming from the “Keys” being given to Peter in Matthew 16 and the use of the Greek “poimaino” in John 21:16

Christ in his threefold commission to Peter to feed his sheep and lambs in John 21:15 and v17 for Feed the Greek word is “bosko” which means to feed or in this case to promote in every way the spiritual welfare of the members of the church, a task falling equally on the twelve… However in V15 the Greek word translated “feed” is “poimaino” which has a meaning in addition to “bosko” of that of governing/ to rule over in this case the Church.

The ‘powers’ given to Peter were given to all the Apostles. I’ve already stated this and given supporting evidence. Matthew 18:18, in case you missed it. Which, as I’ve also noted ties in with the notion of what it is to be ‘Catholic’. Each church headed by a bishop is Catholic (or ‘complete’). And this again also ties in with the history of the early church, as also demonstrated.
Brian Ingram:

This understanding that Peter was set over the other apostles and therefore authority over the Church has support in the Eastern Fathers

You could at least cite this quote mine! I try to at least offer a web-reference so that they can be checked in their context. They are some of the thinnest of quotes seen. Worse still is you offer quotes already refuted. Post #12, for example on Athanasius’ ‘Apostolic Throne’ quote.
Brian Ingram:

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387): “Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church.” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom)
Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church. (Chrys. In illud hoc Scitote)
St. Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople (434):
“Peter, the coryphaeus of the disciples, and the one set over (or chief of) the Apostles.” (Proclus, Or. viii In Dom. Transfig. t. ix. Galland)

See full Chrysostomon rebuttal below (I include Proclus in this because he uses the same type of langauge.

 

[Montalban]

Brian Ingram:

St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363):
“Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church,’” (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)
Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)

For the benefit of openess in discussion I reference these quotes, and do note that they help your case.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Patriarch (363):
“Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church,’” (Cyril, Catech. xi. n. 3)
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-16.htm#P1279_343329
Peter, the chief and foremost leader of the Apostles, before a little maid thrice denied the Lord, but moved to penitence, he wept bitterly. (Cyril, Catech ii. n. 15)
ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-07/Npnf2-07-07.htm#P255_38364
The problem however for you would be in proving that ‘chief’ means more than first as in the first to declare his faith, which is, after-all what the Chruch Fathers I’ve cited say he did - declare his faith first. Then you need to extraoplate why this ‘power’ (which was also conferred upon all the other Apostles, and which didn’t lead Peter to act with ‘papal’ pretences), should then be accorded to only the bishops of a particular See which he founded.
Brian Ingram:

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.): Rome is called the Apostolic throne. (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).
The Chief, Peter. (Athan, In Ps. xv. 8, tom. iii. p. 106, Migne)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424):
He (Christ) promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as He is the Lord of strength, and over this He sets Peter as shepherd. (Cyril, Comm. on Matt., ad loc.)
Pax
Brian

”But Cyril said… “Peter and John were both Apostles and saints and adorned with equal honours and powers”
(P G Migne, 76:65). Whelton, p55.
I can’t address these other ones based on the fact I can’t check them. You’ve not even cited where you’ve taken this list from.
Let’s just look at one writer, John Chrysostomon…
A note from one site[1]
These are exalted titles but in using them Chrysostom does not mean that Peter possesses a primacy of jurisdiction in the Church or that he is the rock upon which the Church is built. Again, we have already seen this in Augustine. He uses similar language in describing Peter but without its having a Roman Catholic meaning. We know this is also true for Chrysostom because he applies similar titles to the other apostles and did not interpret the rock of Matthew 16 to be Peter. The term coryphaeus, for example, was a general title applied by Chrysostom to several of the apostles, not to Peter exclusively. It carries the idea of leadership but implies no jurisdiction. Chrysostom uses this term to describe Peter, James, John, Andrew and Paul. He states that just as Peter received the charge of the world, so did the apostles Paul and John. Just as Peter was appointed teacher of the world, so was Paul. Just as Peter was a holder of the keys of heaven, so was the apostle John. He places the apostles on an equal footing relative to authority:
Now lets actually look at what he says…
”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart…Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer…’We are able to drink the chalice.’”
-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume X,; p. 345
also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-62.htm#P5483_1689815
”Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod”
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”
quoted in Schaff, P, “Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers” (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XI, p.169.
also at ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-11/npnf1-11-33.htm#P1079_1025049
”The coryphaei, Peter the foundation of the Church, Paul the vessel of election”
(Contra ludos et theatra 1, PG VI, 265. Cited by Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928 ), p76).