Simon the Rock

[Dominus Fidelis]

From Photini's article recommendation in another thread...

"For justification of their leadership, the Roman popes refer to the words of the Savior spoken to Apostle Peter, "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt. 16:18) The holy fathers of the Church always understood these words to mean that the Church is built on the faith in Christ which the Apostle Peter confessed, not on Peter personally."

I was curious as to your opinions on why Jesus changed Simon's name to "Petros"...aka "Cephas" in Aramaic, meaning "Rock".

Also, from the same author, I read this quote...

"My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honorable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves (Quoted in S. Runciman, The Eastern Schism, p. 116)."

How does this quote reflect on the above claim that Mathew 16:18 was not refering to Peter himself...and by logical extension, the Bishop of Rome? Why did they "not deny the Roman Church primacy" if Peter wasn't really the "Rock"?

Thanks!

 

[Photini]

This is an interesting read.
http://www.ocados.org/dawn/thouartpeter.htm

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

This is an interesting read.
http://www.ocados.org/dawn/thouartpeter.htm

This article is horribly wrong.

Since I am not allowed to debate here...can I be permitted to point out the problems with it?

If not, can you answer my questions in the opening post please?

 

[Photini]

I should never have posted anything. I'm not one who can discuss this with you, as I am only a baby in the Faith. I don't want a debate, sorry if I came off that way.
BTW, Juice posted some links in another thread on this subject. One of the articles confirms three interpretations of the passage of Scripture in question.
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/eng...umis_peter.html

and

http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_2.html

and
http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/milton1_3.html

 

[Maximus]

Defens0rFidei: How does this quote reflect on the above claim that Mathew 16:18 was not refering to Peter himself...and by logical extension, the Bishop of Rome? Why did they "not deny the Roman Church primacy" if Peter wasn't really the "Rock"?

I don't think knowledgeable Orthodox do deny that St. Peter was the Rock of Matthew 16:18.

The Fathers seemed to think that both St. Peter and his confession of faith were the Rock upon which Christ built His Church.

I think our difference with the RCC over the papacy is a matter of degree. We acknowledge the Bishop of Rome's authority and primacy among the College of Bishops. We just do not believe that constitutes a monarchical authority for the Pope to act unilaterally, without consulting his fellow bishops, or that the Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.

You will see arguments from some Orthodox from time to time claiming the bishops of Rome had no more authority than other bishops or that St. Peter was not the chief of the Apostles, etc. But I don't believe those who make such arguments have really studied the issue or what the Fathers had to say. It also seems to me they have borrowed a page from the Protestant playbook.

From what I have seen, Orthodox scholars acknowledge the primacy of St. Peter and his successors as the bishops of Rome. They simply disagree with the later developments that invested the popes with monarchical authority and infallibility.

Honestly, I am in the process of studying the history of the papacy in the early Church. I have not finished my study, not by a long shot, and it may take me many years. But from what I can see thus far, St. Peter did possess a primacy among the Apostles, and his successors, the bishops of Rome, did exercise a leadership role in the early Church.

I think it is the extent of that role that is the object of dispute between Orthodox and Roman Catholics, not that the role existed.

Yes, St. Peter was the Rock of Matthew 16:18, and that is Orthodox.

 

[Reader Nilus]

This is an interesting read.
http://www.ocados.org/dawn/thouartpeter.htm

Excellent article!
Jeff the Finn

 

[Reader Nilus]

Rome being first among equals has less to do with it being a See of St Peter than it was the capital city.
Jeff the Finn

 

[Maximus]

Rome being first among equals has less to do with it being a See of St Peter than it was the capital city.
Jeff the Finn

Well, St. Irenaeus seems to think there was more to it than that:

" Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do but put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops" (Against the Heresies; Book III, Chap. III).

 

[Reader Nilus]

If I am not mistaken St. Irenaeus was from Gaul, and being in the West looked to Rome as the only Apostolic See, where in the East, that was not the case. So yes St Irenaeus would say that about Rome, as opposed to the sects he was coming across. Rome was the mother church of all of the churches in the West. I doubt that a Greek, Syrian, Coptic, or an Arab saint would say that.
Jeff the Finn

 

[artnalex]

If I am not mistaken St. Irenaeus was from Gaul, and being in the West looked to Rome as the only Apostolic See, where in the East, that was not the case. So yes St Irenaeus would say that about Rome, as opposed to the sects he was coming across. Rome was the mother church of all of the churches in the West. I doubt that a Greek, Syrian, Coptic, or an Arab saint would say that.
Jeff the Finn

Are you saying that Iranaeus believed that solely because he lived in the West. If that is the case, then any eastern church father that agrees with the Orthodox Church does so solely because they are in the east, as well. I'm not sure if that is good reasoning.

This discussion has also recently been discussed on another forum.
http://forum.catholic.org/viewtopic.php?t=4690

 

[Dominus Fidelis]

Thank you Maximus, that was a very intelligent response.

FYI, the RCC also believes this...

The Fathers seemed to think that both St. Peter and his confession of faith were the Rock upon which Christ built His Church.

...the Catechism of the Catholic Church says this explicitly.

 

[Maximus]

If I am not mistaken St. Irenaeus was from Gaul, and being in the West looked to Rome as the only Apostolic See, where in the East, that was not the case. So yes St Irenaeus would say that about Rome, as opposed to the sects he was coming across. Rome was the mother church of all of the churches in the West. I doubt that a Greek, Syrian, Coptic, or an Arab saint would say that.
Jeff the Finn

Well, for starters, Copts are on the outs with Rome over the role of the Tome of Pope St. Leo the Great at Chalcedon. BTW, they are on the outs with the Orthodox Church for much the same reason.

Secondly, do you think St. Irenaeus was wrong when he ascribed the Church of Rome's preeminence as due to the fact that saints Peter and Paul founded it?

St. Polycarp, although Bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor, evidently thought the Bishop of Rome was pretty important. He travelled all the way to Rome (a long and dangerous sea voyage in the second century) to discuss the date of Pascha with Pope Anicetus.

In the 4th-century debates between St. Athanasius and his Arian and Semi-Arian opponents, the questions between them were constantly referred to Rome by all the parties involved.

There are numerous records of appeals to Rome from all over Christendom, including the East.

BTW, St. Irenaeus was Bishop of Lyons in Gaul but was born and raised in Asia Minor and knew St. Polycarp of Smyrna.