Some years ago, a Catholic friend was preparing to enter the Orthodox Church and, not long before his chrismation, he sent me an email saying, “But would I be wrong to separate myself from Peter?”
Exasperated, I wrote back, “We have Peter too!” He is a saint in both churches! When I receive communion on Sunday morning, I am in communion with Peter!
As people make their way toward the ancient church, sooner or later they have to make a decision: Orthodox or Catholic?
And they wonder: What about St. Peter? Didn’t Jesus say Peter was the foundation stone of the Church? Does that mean the bishop of Rome is the ruler of the whole Christian world? Are non-Catholics separated from Peter?
And that’s where Orthodox Christians heave a sigh, as you would over a friend who habitually arrives at a conclusion a few blocks past what the evidence actually supports.
In this case, it has to do with the distinction between seeing St. Peter as the most highly-honored of the Apostles, and seeing him as having authority over the Apostles. As Orthodox see him, Peter holds first place among the Apostles, but he isn’t their boss.
If that’s hard to grasp, just picture the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice holds the place of highest honor among them, but he doesn’t wield authority over them. He can’t appoint them or fire them, or tell them how they have to vote.
Once you recognize that pattern, you can see it everywhere. The brightest kid in a classroom doesn’t have authority over the other students. The best athlete on a team doesn’t have authority over the other players. St. Peter was foremost among the Apostles, but he didn’t wield power over them.
Catholics disagree, of course, and say that Jesus appointed Peter to rule and govern the church. That when Jesus ascended, he left Peter in charge, as his representative on earth.
Orthodox believe that Jesus doesn’t need a representative on earth. He’s still here. He never left. We have a lot of evidence for that.
Catholics also believe that there is a permanent connection between St. Peter and the city of Rome. That Peter’s authority resides in Rome in a way that is not accessible to non-Catholic Christians. Orthodox disagree about that, too.
Orthodox and Catholics have been arguing over all this for so long that, if you wanted to, you could read more about it online than you would ever want to. There are so many opinions that it seems that nobody can say for sure what Jesus originally meant.
But that’s not the case. There is one person who can tell us exactly what Jesus meant when he said those words to Peter. It’s Peter.
We can find out what Peter thought it meant by looking at what he did, in the book of Acts. We can see how Peter lived out his understanding of the role Jesus gave him.
So in Part 1, we’ll talk about what Jesus said to Peter “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.” What did Peter think that meant? He’s a foundation stone. What is the role of a foundation stone?
In Part 2, I’ll talk about how the Orthodox Church regards St. Peter. He is a member in good standing of the Orthodox Church, the same as he is in the Catholic Church.
Here’s how that works. There’s a shared understanding that all the saints of the first thousand years belong to both Churches. Up until the Great Schism between the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, usually pegged at AD 1054—all the saints before that are shared in common.
In Part 3 I’ll take up a few related issues: Why should Peter have any successors? Why would something Jesus said directly, personally, to Peter apply to anybody else? Does a foundation stone have successors? And what does the city of Rome have to do with any of this?
And at that point I expect to just deteriorate into generalized crankiness.
But here is where we’re going to end up: Regardless of what church you call home, every person who loves the Lord Jesus Christ is my brother and my sister. And when the hard times come, we’re gonna stick together.
So, Part 1: What did Jesus say to Peter, and what did Peter think it meant?
This is found in Matthew 16:
<<[Jesus] said to [his disciples], “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [in Greek, Petros], and on this rock [petra] I will build my church.” >>
This happened during one of those rare private moments when Jesus was alone with his disciples. He asked his question, “Who do you say I am?,” and Peter burst out with his proclamation of faith.
Jesus must have looked at Peter with so much love just then. In our Lord’s hard earthly journey, Peter was a constant companion, a faithful friend. When Peter said, “You are the Christ,” it must have given Jesus real joy.
Then Jesus spoke to Peter in such a personal way that it even included giving him a new name. He would no longer be Simon, but Peter, the rock.
From Peter’s perspective, too, it was a shining moment. He was very close to the Lord, walking side-by-side on those long treks up and down the land, sharing meals, talking, constantly together. Peter had really gotten to know Jesus, and Jesus addressed these words personally to him. So how did Peter understand what these words meant?
There are two events in the book of Acts that help with this. In Acts 1:15-26 there is a meeting of church leaders, and Peter stands up and makes the case that they need to find a new Apostle, to replace Judas.
Did Peter then announce whom he had chosen?
The pope claims that authority. He holds “immediate universal jurisdiction,” which means he can appoint, reassign, or depose anyone in the Church, anywhere in the world. If Peter thought Jesus had given him that power, this would be a good time to use it. What possible position could be more important than “Apostle”? If Peter believed that his choice was unerringly going to be God’s choice, he could just announce the new Apostle’s name and let everybody go home.
But that’s not what Peter did. After he urged the finding of a new Apostle, he stepped back. He joined the others in waiting to see whom the Holy Spirit had chosen. The disciples prayed, cast lots, “and the lot fell upon Matthias” (Acts 1:26).
Choosing a new Apostle is a serious undertaking, but Peter didn’t try to do it by himself. He didn’t exercise one of the powers that is claimed by the pope today.
Not much later Peter had another opportunity to use papal powers. You’ll find this story in Acts 15:1-29.
The Church was being battered by a controversy over whether Gentile converts had to follow the Jewish kosher laws. There were strong opinions on both sides, and an urgent need for clarity.
Did Peter believe he possessed “papal infallibility”? The pope claims this unique authority, that he is infallible when “he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals, to be held by the whole Church.”
This controversy over Gentile converts was a serious one, and if Peter thought he had the power to settle the matter infallibly, this would be a good time to do it.
But Peter did not announce his infallible decision. He did as he had before: he spoke his piece and yielded the floor to others. Next, Paul and Barnabas got up and described their mission to the Gentiles. And then James, the bishop of Jerusalem–
Wait, what? Peter wasn’t the bishop of Jerusalem? He wasn’t the leader of the very earliest Christian community?
Yes, the Apostles chose as their leader James, “the brother of the Lord” (Galatians 1:9). They chose James to be their leader even though Peter was standing right there.
Now, back when Jesus said to Peter that he would be the foundation stone, all the other Apostles were there. They must have heard it. But they didn’t interpret it to mean Peter should be the leader of the whole Church.
So Bishop James spoke in agreement with what Peter had said, and then he backed it up with some Scripture. Then he said (Acts 15:19), “Therefore, my judgement is–“
James delivered his judgement? That would be a pretty audacious thing to do, if he thought the pope was in the room. But it was James, not Peter, whom the Apostles had chosen.
There have been many opinions over the years about what the Lord meant, when he said “On this rock I will build my church.” But Peter knew better than anyone else what it meant. Peter lived in the same time and place as Jesus, in the same culture. They spoke the same language. And Peter knew Jesus really well, as well as any human could.
Peter is the best possible interpreter of what Jesus said to him. And we see Peter living out his understanding in this way: he didn’t command the other Apostles, or assign their duties, or settle theological arguments. When decisions needed to be made, Peter spoke up, but he didn’t make those decisions. He stated his convictions, then waited with the others for the Holy Spirit to show them the way.
Peter was a unique character (in his case, “character” seems particularly appropriate). Jesus loved him very much, and treated him a lot of affection and regard. But Peter didn’t act like he thought Jesus had made him the boss over the other Apostles, much less the single, solitary ruler over all the Christians in the world.
Part 2: How do Orthodox Christians see St. Peter?
We love him. As we see him in Scripture, he is vivid, admirable, exemplary, and all-too-human. Many Orthodox churches are named for St. Peter, and many people take him as their patron saint. We call him “Foremost of the Apostles.”
But he isn’t the only one. We also call St. Paul the “Foremost of the Apostles.” We regularly speak of Peter and Paul together, because their destinies have been forever linked. Both were martyred in Rome, and around the year 250 their bodies lay in the catacomb of St. Sebastian. The walls surrounding their tombs were covered with graffiti asking for their prayers. “Peter and Paul, pray for us,” “Paul and Peter, pray for me,” were written on the walls over 600 times.
Paul and Peter, together. In both Catholic and Orthodox Churches Ss Peter and Paul have their feast day together, on June 29. One of the Orthodox hymns for the day calls them the “lead singers” of the Apostles.
Orthodox icons show Peter and Paul embracing. It’s an image that proposes an amicable conclusion to a relationship that was sometimes stormy.
When Paul saw Peter treating converts in a way contrary to the decision in Acts 15, he didn’t pull his punches. Paul wrote, in Galatians 2:11, “When [Peter] came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, for he stood condemned.” However much Paul loved and respected Peter, he didn’t consider him infallible.
Peter was more generous toward Paul, and in 2 Peter 3 he spoke of Paul’s letters as being comparable to Scripture. Peter wrote, “Our dear brother Paul wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures.”
Part 3: Successors, Rome, and generalized griping
There’s one other way that Catholics view St. Peter, that Orthodox don’t share: it is seeing Peter as having successors.
Now, of course, in every generation a diocese gets a new bishop, just because time passes. Since St. Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, every subsequent bishop of Antioch can be said to occupy the seat of St. Peter; that’s a natural “time keeps passing” kind of succession.
But Catholics claim that Peter’s role as bishop of Rome is different. That when Jesus said “On this rock I will build my church,” it meant that he was giving Peter authority over the whole world. His successors would not be bishops of Rome alone, but would inherit Peter’s world-wide authority.
They inherit the honor of being the foundation stone of the Church. So, what does a foundation stone do?
It is clearly a very great honor. But frankly, “foundation stone” is not a job that involves a lot of decision-making. A foundation stone isn’t a building’s architect, or contractor, or even custodian. A foundation stone’s role is, literally, supportive.
Peter demonstrates many of the characteristics of a foundation stone strong, humble, reliable. But there’s one more characteristic of a foundation stone, something essential to the concept, even definitive: it’s that a foundation stone is permanent. You lay it once, and there it stays. That is a foundation stone’s entire job description: just—stay.
And Jesus chose that particular analogy. He could have said Peter was a lion, a lamp, or a casserole dish. But he chose the term “foundation stone.” It’s an object that is distinctly sedentary. Quiet, steady, stalwart, no surprises—not all of these adjectives would apply to Peter, but the point is, a foundation stone is irreplaceable. A building has a one-and-only foundation stone, and doesn’t have successors.
And when the Lord does this elsewhere in the Gospels, when he singles someone out for high praise, we know that it applies to this person alone; it’s not inherited by someone else.
Like when Jesus praised the Centurion in Matthew 8:5-13, he said “Not even in Israel have I found such faith.” We know that he was praising that particular centurion. We don’t think he was setting up a permanent office of “faithful centurions.”
Likewise, when he praised the woman who anointed him before his Crucifixion (Mark 14:9), he said that her story would be told in all the world. But he didn’t create a position of “official anointers” that other women would occupy through the centuries.
The innate meaning of a foundation stone is permanence. There is one and only Peter, and he is irreplaceable.
And finally, what about Rome? How does the city of Rome fit into all this?
Let’s start out with a bit of history. The Church recognized five main centers of Christendom, and you can use your left hand as a map: Rome [thumb], Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria [fingers]. You can see how Rome, and the other four, might come to drift apart. In Rome they spoke Latin, in the other four there they spoke Greek. Rome had that “Roman Empire” way of looking at things, while in Asia and Africa, the Christian faith was more mystical. (I’m not going to go into that now, but if you want to know more, read my book, Welcome to the Orthodox Church.)
Rome was foremost, because Peter and Paul were martyred there, and also because it was the largest and most powerful city in the known world.
But somewhere an idea grew up, in the Roman Catholic Church, that they control access to Peter. It’s as if they hold proprietary rights, and you can’t connect with him if you don’t have official Catholic membership. Peter is permanently tied to the city of Rome because he was martyred there.
But in his lifetime Peter occupied many other places. He was born and bred in the Holy Land (with a thick rural accent to prove it, Matthew 26:73). In Jesus’ time, his home was in Capernaum. Later he was a respected leader in the church of Jerusalem, and then bishop of Antioch.
Peter lived, preached, and prayed in many other cities, before concluding his life in Rome. No single place can claim him, for Peter was a rolling stone.
With his ties to so many other cities, which one would Peter have chosen to be identified with?
Probably it would be the holy city of Jerusalem, or possibly his home town in Galilee. Those would take precedence, for him, over the place where he died.
If you happened to die in a foreign city, you’d no doubt feel the same. It’s your homeland that claims your heart. You might not have any tender feelings toward the city where you died.
And if Rome claims primacy all over the world because it is the city where Peter died, why wouldn’t Jerusalem take priority? Because that’s the city where Peter’s Lord died. Don’t you think that’s what Peter would prefer?
And another thing. If it was God’s eternal plan for the city of Rome to be the spiritual center of the whole world, don’t you think it would have come up in Scripture at least once? The Bible praises Jerusalem above all other cities, in extravagant terms, but it doesn’t have much to say about Rome. Peter himself called it “Babylon” (1 Peter 5:13).
And just how did Rome, or any city, get into the calculations at all? Jesus spoke those wonderful words to Peter, appointing him the foundation stone, but he didn’t say anything about any city anywhere.
When I start getting into this cranky, cane-waving “And another thing!” it’s time to close, but I just want to affirm once more that Orthodox Christians love Peter very much, and we believe he belongs to us as he does to all Christians.
It’s possible to love and honor St. Peter without ascribing to him exclusive authority over the Church, or ascribing to Rome exclusive control over Peter.
He and all the Bible saints belong to all Christians, no matter where they were born; no matter where they lived; no matter where they died.
We who follow in their footsteps need each other regardless of which church we belong to. Every Protestant, every Catholic, everyone who loves my Lord Jesus Christ is my brother and my sister, and we’ll all stick together when the hard times come.