A thought on Matthew 16: 18-19

[Erik Nelson]

@Erik Nelson why are you arguing that Peter alone holds the keys if you are not Roman Catholic?

Just trying to find out the truth of the matter If Jesus really did intend to Saint Peter to be the Shepherd of the Christian flock in his absence, it seems like the Christian flock. Ought to want to know.

 

[Varangian Christian]

Just trying to find out the truth of the matter If Jesus really did intend to Saint Peter to be the Shepherd of the Christian flock in his absence, it seems like the Christian flock. Ought to want to know.

It is good that you are sincerely seeking the truth. May God bless you in your search and bring you into His universal body.

I do not claim to have the knowledge of Orthodoxy others on this forum do as I am new to it myself, but I would recommend you look into the history of how the early Church Fathers treated the Bishop of Rome, how the Church hierarchy functioned and how issues were decided, etc. I do not believe you will find any proof from the early centuries of Christianity supporting the claims of the Roman Pope but rather will find repudiation of them, as evidenced by the quotes given already in this thread. Here Saint and Pope (prior to the schism) Gregory says:

“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.”

Here is an informative article which explains the issue very well.
Orthodox Research Institute

 

[Erik Nelson]

On Earth, Jesus was the Good Shepherd, john 10:11.

He sent out the 12. To minister to? His sheep in the lost sheep of Israel, Matthew 10.

In John 21. Jesus seems to not only reinstate Peter. But because Peter loved Jesus more than the others. He was the bequeathed. The exalted status of. Shepherd. Peter is credited with a. Greater love for Jesus. And he is the rock. The Shepherd. With the keys to the Kingdom. Seems obvious that that's a first among equals status.

I will of course, read your article. Thank you very much. For that.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.

All the Apostles with Jesus. They all had seats at his table. But some of them sat closer to him than others, perhaps. The beloved disciple reclined on his bosom.

That text is very vague. It doesn't explicitly state, the sizes or dimensions of all the Apostles Thrones.

Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18).

That's an important text. It says that the authority of Christ rests where there are 2 or 3 in agreement. Not necessarily one. But Matthew 1818 talks about binding and losing. not keys Kingdom. Your author is bending the word of God.

The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

The very next verses. Like verse 31. Explicitly names Simon.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Honestly, this makes zero sense. Jesus and the Apostles were not speaking Greek. They were not writing in Greek. They were actually speaking Hebrew. The Hebrew words out of their mouth has been translated into Greek. I understand the Italians have a saying. Translation is treason. Because of precisely this issue.

We cannot derive doctrine. From Greek masculine and feminine suffixes. Which would not have been spoken by Jesus or the apostles themselves?

As for generalizing. From Peter's confession of. Faith in Jesus as Christ. As a general archetype for all Christians to follow. Surely there's some truth in that also. I guess if you generalize Saint Peters confession of faith and receipt of the keys to the Kingdom. To all believers who say likewise then all believers have the keys to the Kingdom.

 

[ArmyMatt]

And the earliest reference that of Ireneus says he was ordained by the Apostles Plural. Is known from the letter of the Galatians? That Peter respected and. Acknowledged and followed. Paul's counsel and advice. Perhaps. The obvious harmonisation of all of these accounts. Is that? Peter and Paul both favor Linus.

but where is the evidence that something unique was only passed to Rome.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Third, the patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Yes, Paul received the same Holy Commission and Holy Spirit as the other apostles. But Saint Paul always acknowledged. Peter James and John as the pillars of the church and always IG knowledge there a special authority. At the Council of Jerusalem in 50. AD Paul did not speak with the same authority as the pillars of the church. As did Saint Peter and Saint James.


Furthermore, he taught that Peter’s primacy was not one of honor or rank, but of faith and confession: “As soon as Peter heard these words, ‘Whom say ye that I am?’ remembering his place, he exercised this primacy, a primacy of confession, not of honour; a primacy of faith, not of rank.” (Ibid., p. 174).

So we all agreed that Saint Peter had a primacy at some spiritual sort?

Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).

Ditto.


The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.

That there is an excellent observation. And one I feel. Deserves comment.

 

[Erik Nelson]

but where is the evidence that something unique was only passed to Rome.

My understanding is that something unique was passed to Saint Peter. Saint Peter kept that special something with him all his days. He did not relinquish it and give it up until he was martyred. He happened to be martyred in Rome. And it was there that he laid on hands and bequeathed his special authority to some hand picked successor. Either Saint Linus or Saint Clement. Or one of those.

 

[Erik Nelson]

Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome.
(Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?
Fourth, Jerusalem had unique authority in the Church. It was the Mother of all the Churches. But it never attempted to lord it over the other Churches as its supposed successor did.

And fifth, if we admit a succession from apostle to bishop and (from) Jerusalem to Rome, then there would be a decrease in authority, due to the unique place of the Apostle and of Jerusalem. Rome, however, has claimed more authority that Peter or Jerusalem ever claimed.

Jerusalem this city, which crucified Christ. Revelation. 11:8. Had no authority in the church. Saint James and the church in Jerusalem. Were very important and prominent? But from a purely Christian perspective only. The judgment of seventy AD clearly shows that Jerusalem had no a special significance to the church. Except in symbolic terms. The Christians who fled to Pela. Were more Christian? Then apostate first century Jerusalem.

I think the issue of Jerusalem to Rome. Completely misses the point. Issue is Jesus and the Apostles. Not that particular territory they happened to be in. Saint Peter had an Special Authority. Allegedly. And passed it on at his martyrdom in Rome to someone in Rome.



The last concern that the Orthodox have is with the Roman presupposition that the authoritative role of the Papacy always existed from ancient times. To demonstrate the novelty of this idea I cite the ancient witness of Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), one of the greatest of the Popes. Pope Gregory was concerned that the Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John the Faster, had accepted the title of Ecumenical (or Universal) Patriarch. He condemned any such title for the following reasons.

First, anyone who would use such a title would have fallen into pride, equal to the anti-Christ. He wrote: “I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others” (Ibid., 226).

Second, St. Gregory believed that such a title would be perilous to the Church. “It cannot be denied that if any one bishop be called universal, all the Church crumbles if that universal one fall” (Ibid., p. 223).

Finally, he refused the title for himself because he believed that he was equal with and not superior to his fellow Patriarchs. He wrote to the Bishop of Alexandria these words: “Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity” (Ibid., p. 227). Is it possible that Pope Gregory the Great, one of the greatest of all popes, would be unaware that Peter had universal authority over the Church? Is this fact not proof enough that Peter’s supremacy over the Church as well as his passing on that power to the Bishops of Rome, was an invention and not instituted by Christ?

isn't this about Pope Saint Gregory. The great condemning the patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE for overstepping his bounds? And no pope Gregory does not hypocritically turn right around and. Adopt the exact same. Title. He had just condemned.

Pope Gregory does appear to me, according to that quote to be re fusing. August. Titles. Pomp and circumstance.



It is illuminating to understand that even some very illustrious Roman Catholic theologians today recognize that the Papacy as it now exists is of late origin. W. DeVries admits, “… throughout the first ten centuries Rome never claimed to have been granted its preferred position of jurisdiction as an explicit privilege” (Orthodoxy, Roman Catholicism and Anglicanism by Methodios Fouyas, p. 70). Avery Dulles considers the development of the Papacy to be an historical accident. “The strong centralization in modern Catholicism is due to historical accident. It has been shaped in part by the homogeneous culture of medieval Europe and by the dominance of Rome, with its rich heritage of classical culture and legal organization” (Models of the Church by Avery Dulles, p. 200).

Well, according to the history, I learned. Constantinople. Was repeatedly invaded by barbarians? Perhaps understandably. They bribed the barbarians to go away. And invade Italy and attack Rome instead. They sent Austrogo after Hun after Visigoth. At Rome. Rome fell Constantinople exerted authority over Rome until a thousand. It wasn't until the time of the crusades that Constantinople felt it needed the help and support of the West.

So no we're not gonna get a lot of high and mighty quotes out of Rome Wonder Constantinople Yoke during the first Millennium. The secular authority of Constantinople over Rome during the first Millennium AD would not be directly. Relevant to The spiritual authority. Of Rome. In the church.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Christ told the apostles that they would sit on twelve thrones (Matt. 19:28). A special throne was not set up for Peter.

All the Apostles with Jesus. They all had seats at his table. But some of them sat closer to him than others, perhaps. The beloved disciple reclined on his bosom.

That text is very vague. It doesn't explicitly state, the sizes or dimensions of all the Apostles Thrones.

Moreover the “keys” were given to all the apostles (Matt. 18:18).

That's an important text. It says that the authority of Christ rests where there are 2 or 3 in agreement. Not necessarily one. But Matthew 1818 talks about binding and losing. not keys Kingdom. Your author is bending the word of God.

The other apostles were also the foundation upon which the Church was built (Eph. 2:20). If the Roman view is to be believed, it is interesting to note that when the disciples disputed among themselves as to who would be the greatest, (Lk. 22:24-27), they seemed unaware that Christ had already picked Peter.

The very next verses. Like verse 31. Explicitly names Simon.

Second, the Rock upon whom the Church is established is Christ. When Christ says, “Thou art Peter,” He called him “PETROS,” which means “small stone.” But when He says, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” the Greek term for rock is not Petros but “PETRA” which means “bedrock.” This bedrock which the Church is built upon was always understood by the Greek Fathers and many Western Fathers to mean either Christ Himself, or the profession of faith in Christ’s Divinity.

Honestly, this makes zero sense. Jesus and the Apostles were not speaking Greek. They were not writing in Greek. They were actually speaking Hebrew. The Hebrew words out of their mouth has been translated into Greek. I understand the Italians have a saying. Translation is treason. Because of precisely this issue.

We cannot derive doctrine. From Greek masculine and feminine suffixes. Which would not have been spoken by Jesus or the apostles themselves?

As for generalizing. From Peter's confession of. Faith in Jesus as Christ. As a general archetype for all Christians to follow. Surely there's some truth in that also. I guess if you generalize Saint Peters confession of faith and receipt of the keys to the Kingdom. To all believers who say likewise then all believers have the keys to the Kingdom.

just a few points. one, of course Christ spoke Greek. that's how He was able to speak to Pilate.

and for two, in Revelation, the 12 stones upholding the heavenly Jerusalem are the names of the Apostles.

 

[ArmyMatt]

My understanding is that something unique was passed to Saint Peter. Saint Peter kept that special something with him all his days. He did not relinquish it and give it up until he was martyred. He happened to be martyred in Rome. And it was there that he laid on hands and bequeathed his special authority to some hand picked successor. Either Saint Linus or Saint Clement. Or one of those.

I get that's your understanding, where is the evidence for it? where is the evidence that something unique was passed to Peter's successors in Rome?

 

[ArmyMatt]

and I would say, I think it's in the book Popes and Patriarchs, that the largest chunk of the Fathers say the rock is the confession, some say the rock is Christ, some say it's St Peter, and some say the rock is the Apostles.

for the Orthodox, all are true.

St Peter is the rock, because he made the confession (the rock) about Christ (the rock) which the Apostles would follow in making (the rock).

 

[Ignatius21]

'Eye of the needle' is referring to a gate in Jerusalem that heavily packed camels could not pass through. They had to be unloaded first. Same as the rich man. He cannot get into Heaven with all the trappings of his wealth!

Can you provide a reference to this? I hadn't heard the explanation before. Sure would make a lot of sense.

 

[Erik Nelson]

just a few points. one, of course Christ spoke Greek. that's how He was able to speak to Pilate.

and for two, in Revelation, the 12 stones upholding the heavenly Jerusalem are the names of the Apostles.

Insightful. Plausible. Please remember that pilot was also multilingual. He wrote a sign over. Over the cross in 3 languages Hebrew Greek and Latin. Is it possible? Pilate spoke Hebrew.

Even so, Jesus spoke with pilot. Not seen Pieter. There's no evidence that the Apostles spoke Greek. Scholars say that the. Then unpolished nature of the gospel writings suggest. That the people who wrote them had only recently learned the language.

I doubt that Jesus and the Apostles were speaking Greek. In Galilee. For Matthew 16. I'm still reasonably confident they were actually speaking Hebrew. And it even if they used the Greek words for rock in order to make the pun. You can't fault Jesus. For referring to Simon Keefus as Peter. In a masculine form. I myself don't want to make a doctrine. Around. A masculine sufix ending of the Greek word for rock. Attributed. To Mr. Simon. Which I would hope was kind of required?

 

[Erik Nelson]

I get that's your understanding, where is the evidence for it? where is the evidence that something unique was passed to Peter's successors in Rome?

Well, I would like someone to clarify that to me, too, as well as why that special something. passed to Saint Linus or Saint Anacletus or Saint Clement. Would have Basically, Outranked. John the Evangelist Whilst, he was still alive in Ephesus. Until. The end of the first century.

 

[Light of the East]

but where is the evidence that something unique was only passed to Rome.

How about the structure of a covenant? In biblical covenants, there is only one covenant head. Christ is the Head over all the Church, both seen and unseen. It seemed to me, when I was trying to figure this out as a catechumen, that this same covenant structure which is for the unseen and universal Church, should also be in place for the seen and earthly Church.

That's the one thing that made me go to the Eastern Catholics. Now whether or not this understanding of covenant is true is something I am still thinking on.

 

[RobNJ]

Can you provide a reference to this? I hadn't heard the explanation before. Sure would make a lot of sense.

I used to hear that. or a variation of it, in my protestant days.. Then I found out that the word translated as "camel" was a misspelling of the word for "rope"... So a ...rope through the eye of the needle...". I believe that was from St. Cyril of Alexandria

 

[ArmyMatt]

Insightful. Plausible. Please remember that pilot was also multilingual. He wrote a sign over. Over the cross in 3 languages Hebrew Greek and Latin. Is it possible? Pilate spoke Hebrew.

Even so, Jesus spoke with pilot. Not seen Pieter. There's no evidence that the Apostles spoke Greek. Scholars say that the. Then unpolished nature of the gospel writings suggest. That the people who wrote them had only recently learned the language.

I doubt that Jesus and the Apostles were speaking Greek. In Galilee. For Matthew 16. I'm still reasonably confident they were actually speaking Hebrew. And it even if they used the Greek words for rock in order to make the pun. You can't fault Jesus. For referring to Simon Keefus as Peter. In a masculine form. I myself don't want to make a doctrine. Around. A masculine sufix ending of the Greek word for rock. Attributed. To Mr. Simon. Which I would hope was kind of required?

there is evidence the Apostles spoke Greek. every work of the NT was written in Greek, aside from Matthew (written in Aramaic) which was promptly translated into Greek. in John's Gospel it mentions Greek proselytes. Greek was the common language like Latin became in the West.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Well, I would like someone to clarify that to me, too, as well as why that special something. passed to Saint Linus or Saint Anacletus or Saint Clement. Would have Basically, Outranked. John the Evangelist Whilst, he was still alive in Ephesus. Until. The end of the first century.

we don't believe there was anything special or unique to St Peter's successors in Rome alone.

 

[ArmyMatt]

How about the structure of a covenant? In biblical covenants, there is only one covenant head. Christ is the Head over all the Church, both seen and unseen. It seemed to me, when I was trying to figure this out as a catechumen, that this same covenant structure which is for the unseen and universal Church, should also be in place for the seen and earthly Church.

That's the one thing that made me go to the Eastern Catholics. Now whether or not this understanding of covenant is true is something I am still thinking on.

Christ is head of the unseen and seen covenant because He is both God and man.

 

[prodromos]

we don't believe there was anything special or unique to St Peter's successors in Rome alone.

Apart from the fact that every one of them who accepted the role could expect to die a martyrs death, which meant the early bishops of Rome were the epitome of what it meant to be a bishop. Hence the high praise received by the Church in Rome and especially of her bishops.