Matthew 16.18 and John 21.15: Rocks, keys, sheep and lambs

[Fabio Lins]

Hello all!

I would like to know if you have patristic homilies on S. Matthew 16:18 and S. John 21:15 and replies to the papist readings of these passages, that is, that the rock is Peter himself, that the keys represent his exclusive right to open the doors to the Kingdom of God and that only him and his successors can exert it meaning that only those loyal to the Pope have the doors open to them, and that the sheep and lambs in St. John's passage represent the bishops, the clergy and the laymen, again reinforcing Peter's personal authority over all the church.

Better putting it, how can we respond patristicaly to the questions:

1. What is the rock in St. Matthew 16:18?
2. What are the keys in St. Matthew 16:19?
3. What are the sheep and the lambs in St. John and what does "feed" mean there?




13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
14 And they said, Some [say that thou art] John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed [it] unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
St. Matthew 16



15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, [son] of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not
St. John 21

[Michael Stickles]

I would like to know if you have patristic homilies on S. Matthew 16:18 and S. John 21:15 and replies to the papist readings of these passages, that is, that the rock is Peter himself, that the keys represent his exclusive right to open the doors to the Kingdom of God and that only him and his successors can exert it meaning that only those loyal to the Pope have the doors open to them, and that the sheep and lambs in St. John's passage represent the bishops, the clergy and the laymen, again reinforcing Peter's personal authority over all the church.

Better putting it, how can we respond patristicaly to the questions:

1. What is the rock in St. Matthew 16:18?
2. What are the keys in St. Matthew 16:19?
3. What are the sheep and the lambs in St. John and what does "feed" mean there?

In his 54th Homily on Matthew (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm), St. John Chrysostom says that the "rock" in Matthew 16:18 refers to "the faith of his [Peter's] confession". Regarding the keys St. John says "and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; ...". There is a lot more context in there, but I don't think I could summarize it well.

In his Letter to Heliodorus (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf206.v.XIV.html), St. Jerome mentions the keys, as well as the feeding of Christ's sheep, as being for all the clergy: "Driven from this line of defence you will appeal to the example of the clergy. ... Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ. But, as I have before hinted, the case of monks is different from that of the clergy. The clergy feed Christ’s sheep; I as a monk am fed by them."

In St. John Chrysostom's 2nd book on the Priesthood (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf109.iv.iv.html), he speaks of Christ's words to Peter in John 21 as "tend my sheep", and spoke of that as meaning "to preside over the Church, and be entrusted with the care of many souls, ..." However, it is clear that St. John here is not referring to a single man, for this whole exposition is not theoretical but is directed to his friend Basil who had recently been (unwillingly) ordained to the priesthood. For when Basil asked "What kind of advantage have I derived from this ...", St. John responded "What advantage, pray, could be greater than to be seen doing those things which Christ with his own lips declared to be proofs of love to Himself? For addressing the leader of the apostles He said, 'Peter, lovest thou me?' and when he confessed that he did, the Lord added, 'if thou lovest me tend my sheep.'" So, St. John obviously considered the tending of sheep which Christ entrusted to Peter to be the same as that which Basil was to undertake as a priest.

St. Augustine, also, in his sermon on this passage (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xcviii.html), spoke of it as general to the priesthood, not specific to the papacy: "To Peter did Christ commend His lambs to be fed ... Brethren, do ye with obedience hear that ye are Christ’s sheep; seeing that we on our part with fear hear, 'Feed My sheep'? ... Let then carefulness be our portion, obedience yours; pastoral watchfulness our portion, the humility of the flock yours."

I'm sure there are other Patristic references besides these, but hopefully these will be a good start.

In Christ,
Mike

[Matthew Namee]

I've mentioned this in another thread already, but Abbe Guettee's The Papacy is a great point-by-point refutation of papal claims which includes numerous patristic references. Abbe Guettee was a renowned French Jesuit historian who became convinced that the Orthodox Church was the true Church. In the 1860s, he converted to Orthodoxy and took the name Father Vladimir. His book on the papacy has been translated into English and can be viewed and downloaded here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VcEOAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA252&dq=abbe+guettee+papacy&ei=r_D6R-30IYiSjgGZm7zzCQ#PPR1,M1

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

I understand Roman catholics refer Peter himself to be the Rock and Orthodox say no its Peters confession that is the Rock. That it is Jesus Christ himself is the Rock.

I understand the issue of the Pope of Rome claiming Supemacy over the rest of the Eastern Patriarchs and not Primacy and because of this the 2nd in line the Patriarch of Constantinople has had to take the Primacy Postion.

What about the keys to the kingdom of heaven that the Roman catholics claim only Peter can hold and only his successor Popes can hold.
What is the Orthodox understanding on the Keys that Jesus Gave to Peter?
why does the Patriarch of constantinople have these Keys?

[Olga]

What about the keys to the kingdom of heaven that the Roman catholics claim only Peter can hold and only his successor Popes can hold.
What is the Orthodox understanding on the Keys that Jesus Gave to Peter?
why does the Patriarch of constantinople have these Keys?


All the Apostles have the keys, not just Peter. Christ gave all of them the authority to bind and loose, not just Peter. This is clearly expressed in scripture, and also reflected in the hymnography for the feasts of any of the Apostles. It is also no coincidence that the Orthodox Church celebrates the memory of Apostles Peter and Paul jointly. There is much in the hymnography of that feast, which dates from no later than the 8th century, which puts paid to any idea of Peter as having supreme authority over his fellow apostles.

[Kosta]

These passages do not allude to rome but to any right-believing bishop with apostolic succession.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Thanks::

Also what about when Jesus said to Peter Feed my sheep!! Was this refering to Peter at times would recieve Divine Revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles and that the Rest of the Apostles are the sheep with Peter being their shepherd that feeds them with these revalations?

[Herman Blaydoe]

Generally speaking, in ancient cultures (and some contemporary ones) saying something three times specifcally makes it a legal and binding proclamation.

St Peter denied Christ three times. Here, Christ allows St. Peter to "reclaim" Him, again, three times. Who are the sheep? The whole Church? I really do not think we can draw that sort of conclusion based merely on this scripture.

[Sean M.]

Most of the Church Fathers were divided over this verse, or certainly seem to have views that contradict one another. My view is that both Peter and Christ are the rock(s) in Matthew16:18, the imagery that is being used is taken from the Book of Genesis2:21-24. Peter is being portrayed as the Eve like figure(the rib, petros), or as representative of the Church. In other words Peter is an intrinsic part of the Church, they cannot be separated.

I will probably go into this in more detail when I get time, but I am 100% convinced that this is the correct interpretation, Christ refers to himself in the feminine because the Church is referred to in the feminine(Bride of Christ). The Church had also not been established at that stage and Saint John Chrysostom makes a wonderful analogy about the blood and water coming from the side of Christ on the cross representing the Church(Baptism and the Eucharist). The same imagery that is also used regarding the creation of Eve.

[Olga]

Also what about when Jesus said to Peter Feed my sheep!! Was this refering to Peter at times would recieve Divine Revelation apart from the rest of the Apostles and that the Rest of the Apostles are the sheep with Peter being their shepherd that feeds them with these revalations?

Liturgically, all the apostles, and their successors, the sainted bishops, are referred to as shepherds and pastors. There is never any mention of Peter, or anyone else, as any kind of "Chief Shepherd" over them all. There is even a Theotokion, where the faithful who honour and venerate the Mother of God are called her "little flock".

[Olga]

the imagery that is being used is taken from the Book of Genesis 2:21-24. Peter is being portrayed as the Eve like figure (the rib, petros)

Sean, from where do you draw petros (or any of the forms of the word) from this Genesis selection? Here is the selection in Greek:

21 καὶ ἐπέβαλεν ὁ Θεὸς ἔκστασιν ἐπὶ τὸν ᾿Αδάμ, καὶ ὕπνωσε· καὶ ἔλαβε μίαν τῶν πλευρῶν αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀνεπλήρωσε σάρκα ἀντ᾿ αὐτῆς. 22 καὶ ᾠκοδόμησεν ὁ Θεὸς τὴν πλευράν, ἣν ἔλαβεν ἀπὸ τοῦ ᾿Αδάμ, εἰς γυναῖκα καὶ ἤγαγεν αὐτὴν πρὸς τὸν ᾿Αδάμ. 23 καὶ εἶπεν ᾿Αδάμ· τοῦτο νῦν ὀστοῦν ἐκ τῶν ὀστέων μου καὶ σὰρξ ἐκ τῆς σαρκός μου· αὕτη κληθήσεται γυνή, ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς αὐτῆς ἐλήφθη αὕτη· 24 ἕνεκεν τούτου καταλείψει ἄνθρωπος τὸν πατέρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὴν μητέρα καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔσονται οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.

The bolded words refer to ribs, flesh and bone. No mention of rock, stone or pebble at all.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Liturgically, all the apostles, and their successors, the sainted bishops, are referred to as shepherds and pastors. There is never any mention of Peter, or anyone else, as any kind of "Chief Shepherd" over them all. There is even a Theotokion, where the faithful who honour and venerate the Mother of God are called her "little flock".

So if all the bishops are sheperds. what are the Priests refered to? what are the laity refered? Are Priests sheep and laity lambs?

[Sean M.]

Sean, from where do you draw petros (or any of the forms of the word) from this Genesis selection? Here is the selection in Greek:

Petros can also be understood as part of the larger rock petra, the imagery is the same as the imagery in Genesis, Eve(Petros) was taken from the side of Adam(Petra).

The place that Christ tells Peter this is also significant, he tells him it in Caesarea Philippi. Caesarea Philippi was a pagan Roman City at the foot of Mount Hermon. Mount Hermon was a large mountain with a lot of pagan temples carved into it, the significance is that this was probably done to illustrate what Christ was telling Peter, only Peter would not represent paganism but christianity which would triumph over paganism. Christ is the mountain(Church, Petra) figuratively speaking and Peter is the temple(also a part of the Church) carved into it representing christianity. A perfect example of this is Petra Church in Jordan, it is a Church carved into a mountain, imagine Peter(Petros, Eve, Adams Rib) as the Church carved into the mountain(Christ, Adam), and imagine Christ as the mountain. I believe this is the imagery that was intended in Matthew16:18.

Here is a picture of Petra Church in Jordan.

http://www.sacred-destinations.com/jordan/petra-pictures/monastery-cc-Joan-Rubio.jpg

And here is a picture of a pagan temple carved into Mount Hermon.

http://www.spirituality.org.za/uploaded_images/07052008212-758302-758411.jpg

[Herman Blaydoe]

So if all the bishops are sheperds. what are the Priests refered to? what are the laity refered? Are Priests sheep and laity lambs?

Bishops are shepherds, priests are also shepherds that work for the bishops. They are the bishop's representatives when the bishop cannot be there, who act in his name. They are also part of the bishop's flock, but also are responsibile for their parishes, which are subdivisions of the flock. They are the shepherds for their parishes.

[Olga]

Petros can also be understood as part of the larger rock petra, the imagery is the same as the imagery in Genesis, Eve(Petros) was taken from the side of Adam(Petra).I'm still mystified as to your connection of the creation of Eve in Genesis with Peter and Petra. Do you have patristic or Orthodox liturgical references for this?

If anything, there is liturgical and scriptural imagery of the "stone cut without hands from the mountain". The Orthodox interpretation: the mountain is the Mother of God, the stone cut from her is Christ. Again, Christ is the petra. Christ is also the stone that the builders rejected which became the cornerstone.

[Sean M.]

I'm still mystified as to your connection of the creation of Eve in Genesis with Peter and Petra. Do you have patristic or Orthodox liturgical references for this?

Yes, you will often get the same Saints referring to both Christ and Peter as the rock, the point is that both opinions are correct. The link with Eve in the Genesis account is the imagery used, Christ refers to himself in the feminine, because as Chrysostom and others point out the Church(petra, feminine) comes from Christ. Paul also uses the same analogy from Genesis in Ephesians5:31:32. The reason he uses the masculine noun to describe Peter is to show that Peter is inextricably linked to the Church, or as Saint Ambrose puts it;


Where Peter is, there must be the Church.

Why because they are inextricably linked, petros is a part of petra as seen from the illustrations I have provided.


There flowed from his side water and blood”. Beloved, do not pass over this mystery without thought; it has yet another hidden meaning, which I will explain to you. I said that water and blood symbolized baptism and the holy eucharist. From these two sacraments the Church is born: from baptism, “the cleansing water that gives rebirth and renewal through the Holy Spirit”, and from the holy eucharist. Since the symbols of baptism and the Eucharist flowed from his side, it was from his side that Christ fashioned the Church, as he had fashioned Eve from the side of Adam Moses gives a hint of this when he tells the story of the first man and makes him exclaim: “Bone from my bones and flesh from my flesh!” As God then took a rib from Adam’s side to fashion a woman, so Christ has given us blood and water from his side to fashion the Church. God took the rib when Adam was in a deep sleep, and in the same way Christ gave us the blood and the water after his own death.


Do you understand, then, how Christ has united his bride to himself and what food he gives us all to eat? By one and the same food we are both brought into being and nourished. As a woman nourishes her child with her own blood and milk, so does Christ unceasingly nourish with his own blood those to whom he himself has given life.

[Sean M.]

If anything, there is liturgical and scriptural imagery of the "stone cut without hands from the mountain". The Orthodox interpretation: the mountain is the Mother of God, the stone cut from her is Christ. Again, Christ is the petra. Christ is also the stone that the builders rejected which became the cornerstone.

The masculine noun for rock/stone that is used to describe Christ is lithos(Romans9:33, 1Peter2:8) etc....this is parallelled with the feminine noun petra in these verses, Christ is also described using the feminine noun in several other places(1Corinthians10:4) etc.... Peter I believe is never referred to as petra but always as petros(John20:23, Acts3:4, 1Peter1:1) etc.....

The mountain or the larger stone is Christ, again Mary can also be seen as an Eve like figure because she is inextricably linked to Christ, but she is not more prominent than Christ(Luke1:48, John15:20).

[Olga]

You are confusing grammatical gender with personal gender. Petra (rock) is, indeed, feminine in Greek, Petros is simply a masculinisation of this word, intended to to be used as a given name, in the same way that adjectives are the origins of many given names in every culture. It would be nonsensical to call Simon Bar-Jonah Petra.

Equating grammatical gender with personal gender can lead to the sort of trap that the sophianists fell (and still fall) into, by equating wisdom (grammatically feminine in many languages) with "the divine feminine". Ekklesia is indeed feminine, but naos (temple) is masculine. Greek speakers have no trouble with, nor is it seen to be irreverent, to refer to the Holy Spirit as It and similarly neuter terms. See what I mean?

[Sean M.]

You are confusing grammatical gender with personal gender. Petra (rock) is, indeed, feminine in Greek, Petros is simply a masculinisation of this word, intended to to be used as a given name, in the same way that adjectives are the origins of many given names in every culture. It would be nonsensical to call Simon Bar-Jonah Petra.

Equating grammatical gender with personal gender can lead to the sort of trap that the sophianists fell (and still fall) into, by equating wisdom (grammatically feminine in many languages) with "the divine feminine". Ekklesia is indeed feminine, but naos (temple) is masculine. Greek speakers have no trouble with, nor is it seen to be irreverent, to refer to the Holy Spirit as It and similarly neuter terms. See what I mean?

Why would it be nonsensical to call Simon Bar-Jonah Petra, but alright to call Christ by the same name or associate the term with Christ, was Christ feminine?

I am of the opinion that the play on words was very deliberate, and the reason Christ was referred to in the feminine is because the Church(feminine) is also referred to as the Body or the Bride of Christ several times througout scripture. Clearly a bride is feminine, and as John Chrysostom and others compare the beginning of the Church with the description of Eve's creation in Genesis, I don't know why you think such an anology would be nonsensical?

[Olga]

Why would it be nonsensical to call Simon Bar-Jonah Petra, but alright to call Christ by the same name or associate the term with Christ, was Christ feminine?


You are confusing metaphorical and symbolic terms describing Christ, with a name derived from an adjective, which was bestowed on Simon Bar-Jonah, to be used as a given name. The bestowing of a new name, reminiscent of baptism (as is also the case with Saul who became Paul, or Jacob who became Israel) is quite different to Christ being described (often by Himself) as a stone, a vine, a door, light of the world, etc.



as John Chrysostom and others compare the beginning of the Church with the description of Eve's creation in Genesis, I don't know why you think such an anology would be nonsensical?


I have no problem at all with St John's comparison, but it seems you are straining to insert Peter into the Genesis story where no such connection, even symbolic, exists. I reiterate that all the apostles were given full authority to bind and loose, and to feed the sheep and lambs. This is borne out time and again in Orthodox hymnography, which represents the consensus patrum of the Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Bishops are shepherds, priests are also shepherds that work for the bishops. They are the bishop's representatives when the bishop cannot be there, who act in his name. They are also part of the bishop's flock, but also are responsibile for their parishes, which are subdivisions of the flock. They are the shepherds for their parishes.

So if Priest are sheperds how can they also be sheep as part of the flock?

[Sean M.]

You are confusing metaphorical and symbolic terms describing Christ, with a name derived from an adjective, which was bestowed on Simon Bar-Jonah, to be used as a given name. The bestowing of a new name, reminiscent of baptism (as is also the case with Saul who became Paul, or Jacob who became Israel) is quite different to Christ being described (often by Himself) as a stone, a vine, a door, light of the world, etc.

This doesn't explain why you think it would have been nonsensical to give Peter the name petra, and not nonsensical to use the feminine noun to describe Christ? Why for instance do you think the feminine noun was chosen to describe Christ, do you think this was merely accidental or deliberate?

Do you think Paul and John's descriptions of the Church as the Bride of Christ were also metaphorical, or will the Bride of Christ(The members of the Church), actually be partakers of the divine nature(2Peter1:4, 1John3:1-2)? Paul uses a similar analogy I gave earlier in Ephesians5:31-32(taking the same language from Genesis2:24), but he doesn't call it a metaphor or a symbol he calls it a, 'great mystery,' because it reveals a deeper spiritual truth.


I have no problem at all with St John's comparison, but it seems you are straining to insert Peter into the Genesis story where no such connection, even symbolic, exists.

Compare Genesis3:5-6, Job2:9-10 and Matthew16:22-23, what do you think the connection is?


I reiterate that all the apostles were given full authority to bind and loose, and to feed the sheep and lambs. This is borne out time and again in Orthodox hymnography, which represents the consensus patrum of the Church. Lex orandi, lex credendi.

I might make a separate thread about this.

[Kosta]

So if Priest are sheperds how can they also be sheep as part of the flock?

Whether bishop (episcopos), priest (presbytery) or deacon (servant) all come forth from the laity.

[Kosta]

The phrase 'tauth petra' where both the noun and article are in the feminine refer to Peters confession of faith. Upon this rock(tauth petra)i will build my ekklesia (feminine) and the gates of Hades will not prevail against HER (auth greek for her.).

[Antonios]

The phrase 'tauth petra' where both the noun and article are in the feminine refer to Peters confession of faith. Upon this rock(tauth petra)i will build my ekklesia (feminine) and the gates of Hades will not prevail against HER (auth greek for her.).

This is in fact the earliest and furthest expansive understanding of the early Church, both historically and traditionally. This does not lead into infallibility of man, but conciliatory consensus between brothers. Peter and Andrews were brothers, and each served the other in divine love.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

The phrase 'tauth petra' where both the noun and article are in the feminine refer to Peters confession of faith. Upon this rock(tauth petra)i will build my ekklesia (feminine) and the gates of Hades will not prevail against HER (auth greek for her.).

You are christ the Son of the living God! Is what i understand as the confession. ''The rock of confession''. Jesus christ is the Rock and foundation of the church. All churches are built on this rock. Jusus reaffirmed the name he had given to Peter earlier because Jesus forknew he would make that confession. Like he forknew Peter would deny him.

[Herman Blaydoe]

So if Priest are sheperds how can they also be sheep as part of the flock?

You are making things way too literal. Technically and literally speaking, a shepherd is one who herds sheep. A shepherd is a human and sheep are, well, sheep. A human shepherd cannot be a four-legged sheep.

HOWEVER, we are ALL of the flock of Christ in a FIGURATIVE sense. We are His sheep. Not literally because we do not go about on four legs, eat grass and grow wool, but figuratively in that He leads us ALL. He calls Himself the Good Shepherd and everyone is part of His flock, bishop, priest, deacon, prophet, healer, teacher, laity, are ALL His sheep, not literally but figuratively.

So yes, the bishop is part of Christ's flock, the priest is part of the bishop's flock and we are under the priest's care. Ordination imbues grace but it does not turn one into someone suprahuman. The bishop is still a human being, he is still one of Christ's "sheep".

[Nina]

by Saint Ambrose
Where Peter is, there must be the Church.


Sean can you please post the entire paragraph of this saying by St. Ambrose?

[Sean M.]

Sean can you please post the entire paragraph of this saying by St. Ambrose?

I can only find this at the moment Nina, but will try to locate the full paragraph when I get more time.


It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal.

It is taken from his commentary on the twelve Psalms of David.

[Christina M.]

It is taken from his commentary on the twelve Psalms of David.

When (and if) he wrote "Where Peter is, there is the Church", he is not being exclusive. One could also say: "Where Paul is, there is the Church", and likewise for all the other apostles.

I could also say: "Where my local bishop is, there is the Church", and this is still completely correct. This doesn't mean that the Church is only where my local bishop is, and it doesn't mean that my local bishop is infallible.

[Nina]

by Saint Ambrose
It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal.


Thank you. But look at the difference of what you posted before the complete sentence:



http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/misc/great_lent/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Sean M. http://www.monachos.net/forum/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?p=106168#post106168)
by Saint Ambrose
Where Peter is, there must be the Church.
So you wrote: "Where Peter is, there must be the Church." and afterward "Where Peter is, there is the Church."

There is a huge difference in how this is presented. We can find the original writing of Saint Ambrose and see what he wrote and what the context is, however it will not change how we Orthodox see the issue you write about.

Also remember what Christ said to the mother of the sons of Zebedee.

[Ronnie Shakespeare]

Liturgically, all the apostles, and their successors, the sainted bishops, are referred to as shepherds and pastors. There is never any mention of Peter, or anyone else, as any kind of "Chief Shepherd" over them all. There is even a Theotokion, where the faithful who honour and venerate the Mother of God are called her "little flock".


You say there is never a mention of Peter as any kind of ''chief shepered'' Over them all. What do you mean by that?
I have come across writings from the early church!!

St cyril of Jerusalem>Patriarch of Eastern part of Constatinople> AD 363.

''For Peter was There who carrieth the Keys of Heaven''

St John Chrysostom>Patriarch of Constantinople> AD 387

Peter Himself the Head or crown of the Apostles....Peter. That leader of the choir,the mouth of the rest of the Apostles, the head of the brotherhood, That one set over the entire universe, that foundation of the Church....who was intrusted with the keys of heaven, who recieved the spiritual revelation, Peter, the mouth of the rest of the Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.

Stephen> Bishop of Dora in Palestine. AD 645

And for this cause, Sometimes we ask water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the chair. { the chair to Peter at Rome} Which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole world. For this has been accustomed to do from the old to the beginning with power by its canonical or apostilic authority, because truly the great Peter, the head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or close it justly to those who disbelieve the gospel of grace, but because he was commisioned to feed the sheep of the whole catholic church; for 'Peter', saith he, lovest thou me? Feed my sheep.

St Theodore> The studite of Constantinople, 759-826 AD>writing to Pope Leo 111:

Since to great Peter Christ our lord gave the office of chief shepered after entrusting him with the keys to heaven, to Peter of his successor must of necessity every novelty in the catholic church be referred. {Therefore}, save us, oh the most divine head of heads, Chief Shepered of the Church of heaven.

[Herman Blaydoe]

This is discussed in detail in the the work of Father Réné-Francois Guettée, The Papacy (http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf), specifically discussing St. Chrysostom, for example, starting on page 57. All of these are addressed. I recommend you become familiar with this work. It answers so many of these questions and I have yet to see a well-reasoned refutation.

Enjoy.

Herman the Pooh

Herman

[Paul Cowan]

the reason Christ was referred to in the feminine is because the Church(feminine) is also referred to as the Body or the Bride of Christ several times througout scripture. Clearly a bride is feminine,

I have always struggled with this. I am a dude. How do I take on the role of woman in this Bride anaolgy?

Paul

[Olga]

You say there is never a mention of Peter as any kind of ''chief shepered'' Over them all. What do you mean by that?
I have come across writings from the early church!!

Ronnie, nobody denies that there were individual saints who wrote certain things, but it should be remembered that individual saints are not, simply by virtue of their sanctity, infallible. It seems you overlooked a crucial word in my post: Liturgically, allthe apostles, and their successors, the sainted bishops, are referred to as shepherds and pastors. There is never any mention of Peter, or anyone else, as any kind of "Chief Shepherd" over them all.

Why is this word so important? Because what is read, chanted and sung represents the clearest and most reliable expression of the consensus patrum of the Orthodox Church.

From the "Pre-schism Popes" thread of 2008:

from a post of mine, #51:


Councils of theologians are all very well and honourable in intent, but there are two simple and very accessible sources of doctrine which are consistent across the whole Orthodox world: iconography, and liturgical texts. The Orthodox Church regards Apostles Peter and Paul as the pre-eminent apostles, not just Peter. This is abundantly clear in both iconography, and in the text for the vigil of Sts Peter and Paul. Both are held in equal regard, hence the joint feast-day. The joint commemoration has a purpose: to remove any notions of supremacy. Another example of this is the feast of the Three Hierarchs, instituted to show the Church's equal regard for Sts Basil the Great, John Chrysostom and Gregory the Theologian.

The feast for Sts Peter and Paul dates back to no later than the mid-8thC, given that the canon at Matins was written by St John of Damascus, and other hymns by contemporaries, including St Andrew of Crete.

Individual fathers may contradict each other, but the liturgical texts represent the distillation of the teachings of the Church for any feast. It is what the whole Orthodox Church espouses and proclaims, irrespective of geographic location or jurisdiction. It is the same with iconography. Individual icons of Apostle Peter exist in great numbers, but there is no indication at all that he is pre-eminent over all the others. In icons of the assembly of the Twelve Apostles, Peter and Paul are in the foreground, often jointly holding a model of a church building, a motif also used in icons of saints regarded as "equals to the Apostles", such as the enlightener-saints e.g. Sts Vladimir and Olga of Kiev, Nina of Georgia, Olaf of Norway, etc. Apostle Andrew is shown standing behind Peter and Paul, but still in a position of prominence, as he was the first to be chosen by Christ to be a disciple. All of this is consistent with Orthodox teaching.

and from a post by Herman Blaydoe, #53:


I think this is a very important point which cannot be over emphasized. Infallibility has never been required of our bishops or even of our saints. Different fathers have indeed had different opinions, but the Faith is unerringly presented in our worship. As Olga says, it is the distillation of our teachings. We pray as we believe and we believe as we pray, keeping our eyes on Christ we walk on the stormy seas of controversy that roil around us. And of course holy icons are prayers and teachings set to pictures. The accepted iconography of the Church is the accepted theology of the Church! As we prepare to fire broadsides of "canons" and boarding parties of "quotes from the Fathers", let us indeed be aware of context and of the truly accepted teachings of the Church as exemplified and amplified by how we worship and pray and may the Peace that surpasses all understanding be with all who love and follow Christ.

Post #59 contains a generous selection of the hymnography from Vespers and Matins for the feast of Apostles Peter and Paul, which dispel any notion of the supremacy of Peter over his fellow apostles:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?3363-Pre-schism-popes-universal-rulers-of-the-Orthodox-Church&p=63918&viewfull=1#post63918

Link to the thread, which covers much useful ground:

http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?3363-Pre-schism-popes-universal-rulers-of-the-Orthodox-Church

[Sean M.]

I have always struggled with this. I am a dude. How do I take on the role of woman in this Bride anaolgy?

I have struggled with this too, but it simply means that we recognize that Christ is the head of the Church and we are the body, we are the servants(John15:20).

That is not to say that women are inferior to men, but Paul gives us an example of how this relationship is comparable with how we should serve Christ.(Ephesians5:25-33, Colossians3:18-19)

[Vasily]

Glory to Jesus Christ,

The Church of Rome claims that because the Aramaic/Syriac original of Matthew 16:18 ,underlying the existing Greek text, uses the word "Ke'pha both as the proper name given to Simon Bar Jonas and as the word for the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church, therefore Peter (Ke'pha) is the Rock upon which Christ promised to build His Church. Plus the fact that Christ spoke Aramaic.

I understand the difference between the Greek words "petros" and "petra", but how does this relate to the Aramaic?

[Daniel R.]

The problem is that we do not have the Aramaic original of Matthew the current Aramaic/Syriac version of Matthew is a translation from the Greek. The Holy Apostle Matthew or one of his disciples translated it into Greek so they would have know what they were doing and that is the version the Church has preserved.

[Vasily]

An excellent website that explains this passage in Matthew and refutes Catholic apologists and Rome's claims The website is: www.the-highway.com/Matt16.18_webster .

[Nina]

The phrase 'tauth petra' where both the noun and article are in the feminine refer to Peters confession of faith. Upon this rock(tauth petra)i will build my ekklesia (feminine) and the gates of Hades will not prevail against HER (auth greek for her.).

Yes. ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ "on this rock" - Greek feminine demonstrative pronoun and article. Therefore it does not refer to the person of Peter because Christ would have used the masculine form had He meant it for the person of Peter.

Blessed Thophylact says that the rock was the foundation of those who beleive; it would be built on the faith of the confession.

[Sean M.]

Yes. ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ "on this rock" - Greek feminine demonstrative pronoun and article. Therefore it does not refer to the person of Peter because Christ would have used the masculine form had He meant it for the person of Peter.

Blessed Thophylact says that the rock was the foundation of those who beleive; it would be built on the faith of the confession.

So if it refers to Christ why does he use the feminine noun to describe himself?

Btw I do think when Christ distinguished the two different types of rock(s) it was intentional, although this is debatable if he told Peter in Aramaic.

[Nina]

So if it refers to Christ why does he use the feminine noun to describe himself?


Where do you read that I said it refers to Christ?

[Sean M.]

Where do you read that I said it refers to Christ?

Ok then why does Christ refer to this confession of faith using the feminine noun for rock, and why does Paul say that Christ is the petra(1Corinthians10:4) using the same feminine noun? Why for example not use lithos which is a similar Greek equivalent to petros?

Which is it, is it the confession of faith or is it Christ?

[Nina]

As I posted:


Blessed Thophylact says that the rock was the foundation of those who beleive; it would be built on the faith of the confession.

[Sean M.]

Paul writes that the rock was Christ and the Fathers write that the rock was both Peter and Christ, how can you harmonize both opinions?

[Nina]

Paul writes that the rock was Christ and the Fathers write that the rock was both Peter and Christ, how can you harmonize both opinions?

Oh, dear Lord. Christ is the only One.

[Paul Cowan]

Paul writes that the rock was Christ and the Fathers write that the rock was both Peter and Christ, how can you harmonize both opinions?

I didn't say anything of the sort!

Oh, wait, you were talking about St. Paul. Sorry.

All references below are from the footnotes of the OSB.



1 Corinthians 10:1 Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ. 5 But with most of them God was not well pleased, for their bodies were scattered in the wilderness.

Israel's liberation from Egypt by Moses prefigures our liberation from sin by Christ. The cloud is a symbol of the Holy Spirit; the sea, of water and baptism; the Rock, of the body of Christ, His humanity; and the spiritual drink, of Christ's blood. Jesus Himself linked these events of the Passover with the Euchrist when He established it.


Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, “Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?”
14 So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

"Who do you say that I am?" is the greatest question a person can ever face, for it is the question that defines Christianity. Peter's correct answer to this question prevents the Christian faith from being seen as merely another philosophical system or path to spirituality, for it names Jesus as the one and only Son of the living God. This position excludes all compromise with other religious systems. Peter's understanding cannot be achieved by human reason, but only by divine revelation through faith. Christ means "Anointed One," and is equivalent to the Hebrew title "Messiah".
Peter/Rock is a play on the word for "rock" in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to "the faith of his confession". The True Rock is Christ Himself and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ.


15 So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah,[b] do you love Me more than these?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Feed My lambs.”
16 He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[c] do you love Me?”
He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.”
He said to him, “Tend My sheep.”
17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah,[d] do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?”
And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.”
Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep. 18 Most assuredly, I say to you, when you were younger, you girded yourself and walked where you wished; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 This He spoke, signifying by what death he would glorify God. And when He had spoken this, He said to him, “Follow Me.”

It is important to note that the first two times Christ inquires of Peter, "Do you love me?" He uses a form of the word agape, which denotes the highest form of sacrificial and self-emptying love, the kind of love God has for man and that man can develop only through maturing in God's grace. Each time, however, Peter is unable to claim such a lofty love. When Peter answers, "You know that I love you," he uses the term philo, which is a lesser form of love, akin to brotherly affection. When the Lord asks the third time, "Do you love me?" He has changed to the term philo, condescending to Peter's weakness and accepting whatever love Peter is able to offer. Nevertheless, Christ knows that Peter will develop agape love for Him, as Peter will eventually accept martyrdom for His sake. Peter was grieved both that the Lord had to condescended to his level of love and that this was a clear, though gentle, reference to his three denials.

Paul