Your question deserves a good answer. This is a stumbling block for many and it even ensnares True Orthodox people from time to time. I recently had one of my own dear parishioners fall prey to this trap. So, you need to have a concise and well-thought out explanation. That notwithstanding, I will give it a try anyway.
How do the Orthodox view this “rock statement” as mentioned in Matthew 16:13-20? The Roman Catholics will have you believe that Christ is installing Saint Peter as Pope, the Vicar of Christ, and the visible head of the Church. Does the Orthodox Church accept this or does it insist, as the Protestant do, that Christ was talking about Saint Peter’s confession of faith; that He was building His Church on that as the foundation. Which is it?
First of all, let’s see if there is any evidence that Christ meant the “rock statement” as the RC would insist. In Matthew 20:20-28 (St Mark mentions the same discussion 10:35-45) there has arisen an argument among the disciples about who is chief among them. Even if we take these events to have happened out chronological time, shouldn’t have Christ said, “My friends, clearly I have chosen Peter to be the chief among you. And when I am gone from you he will be the visible head of the Church. After all he is my rock!” Instead, Christ patiently explains to them that the first among them must be the servant of all, not a lord over them as the Roman (Gentiles) ruled.
The Apostles clearly had no understanding of Peter being the head of the Church when they held the First Apostolic Council in the 15th Chapter of the Book of Acts. It was Saint James who presided over that council. Saint Peter was allowed one vote as did the rest of the Holy Apostles. If Peter was their chief, why didn’t he preside, or just tell them the infallible decision ex cathedra?
In fact, when you study Church history you don’t find the assertion that the primacy of Rome meant that the Pope was the boss of all the other bishops surfacing until 7th century, hitting their height with the Frankish invasion and installation of Charlemagne’s Popes who begin forcefully asserting this idea.
Secondly, we are so conditioned in the West to dichotomize things that we often fail to comprehend a fair chunk of Christianity – which is an Eastern religion. The answer is that it is not either/or but both/and. Did the Popes of Rome have a primacy of honor in the Church, yes! There were also many of them who defended Orthodoxy and are honored to this day as holy saints. However, their primacy was as “the first among equals,” and today the RC has forgotten the “equals” part of that. Every bishop, whether he is a Patriarch, Metropolitan, Archbishop, or Bishop is an equal successor to Peter. But he is also an equal successor to Paul, James, Jude, Bartholomew, James, Andrew, Thomas, etc. As long as a bishop is confessing Christ according to true doctrine, then he is being “the rock.” The rock is the true confession of Christ and at the same time it is the living Church, embodied and safeguarded by the Apostles and their successors—the bishops. Christ did not leave behind only a confession of faith. He did not leave behind only His writings; He wrote nothing. He left behind His Apostles, whom He sent the Holy Spirit to lead into ALL TRUTH, to spread His Holy Gospel to the ends of the earth.
Peter often serves as the archetype of the Apostles in the Holy Scriptures. He doubts; so does Thomas. He has great faith; so do they all. He is a leader; so is Paul. He is a simple man transformed by his interaction with Christ; so is Andrew. The point being, that what we see in Peter we see in them all. The objective that Christ sought to teach them is that none of them is more special than the others. They have all received equal shares of Apostleship. Read Saint John’s Revelation, you will be able to pick out the Apostles among the heavenly company, but not distinguish Peter from the other eleven.
But we must also understand that just because a man is Pope, and has primacy of honor, does not shield him from heresy. And it did not. Indeed the RC has subsisted in twisted heresy for so many centuries now that it has grown into a grotesque organization full of avarice and power hunger. It wraps itself in the covering of being “the ancient Church” but it is not. The Popes are no longer successors to Peter, because they no longer preach the same Gospel that was delivered originally. They are no longer rocks, because they no longer stand on the rock. They can “sit in the chair of Peter” all they’d like and it won’t make their heresies true, any more than it made the Arians correct when they occupied the majority of the churches of the Empire at their height.
Being the rock is not about a human institution geographically located in Rome. Christ exploded this idea when speaking to Saint Photini at Jacob’s well (John 4:19-24). She asked Him where God was to be worshiped, and He explained that the time had come that God would be worshiped everywhere because it was to be about worshiping in spirit and in truth. How can the Church be both universal, and yet be tied to one location – Rome? How can there be bishops and conciliar rule, when one is the boss of all the others, lording over them? How could an asteroid hit Vatican City and destroy it along with the Pope and the result be that the Church, according to the deductions of RC theology, be wiped out due to a piece of the earth being destroyed?
It can’t! These are lies, from the father of lies; who wishes to scatter the sheep and confuse his prey by sophistries of worldly men. The Papacy will not save us, their rock has crumbled and their house is built upon sand. As is any bishop who turns away from True Orthodoxy in favor of lies.
Does that help?
