St. Peter: The Rock of the Church
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:18
Did Jesus Christ make St. Peter the rock foundation of His Church? Although this is a question that’s been less contentious in recent years, I nonetheless believe that how one answers it will have a significant impact on which ecclesial body they end up joining. This has at least been true for me, as I firmly believe that because Peter is the rock of Christ’s Church, this necessitates an understanding of ecclesiology that’s only reconcilable with the Catholic faith. This article will explain why I hold this position.
To begin, one of the most common objections to St. Peter being the rock of the Catholic Church is that, while Simon is renamed “Petros” in Matthew 16:18, Jesus says that He will build His Church upon the “petra.” The implication is that Jesus really meant to say the Church is built upon Himself and not Peter. This argument relies on the supposition that the words petros and petra have distinct meanings in Greek, with the former referring to a “little rock” and the latter referring to some kind of “immovable boulder.” The Protestant writer John MacArthur even twisted these words of Jesus in the following way: “You are petros—‘you are a pebble Peter, you are a boulder’—but upon this petra—‘rock bed foundation’—I will build my church.”1 However, as often as this verbal distinction is asserted, Joe Heschmeyer has observed that there’s simply no evidence that 1st century Greek knew of a difference in meaning between petros and petra. This can be proven by a simple glance at ancient Greek literature. For example, Apollonius of Rhodes, a Greek poet from the 3rd century B.C., in his work Argonautica described a “huge round boulder” that was so large that four men could not move it; and guess what word he used to describe this huge immovable rock, petros.2 That does not sound like a “pebble” or “little rock” to me.
It seems that, over time, the words petros and petra became synonymous in Greek. Indeed, by the time the New Testament was written, these words largely dropped out of favor and got replaced by the all encompassing word “lithos,” which can mean anything from a tiny stone (Matt 7:9) to a giant boulder (Matt 27:60). You’ll notice that the NT never actually uses the word petros for anything other than the name of Simon Peter, certainly never using it to refer to a tiny rock. It also must be pointed out that, when Matthew’s Gospel does unambiguously describe Jesus as “the rock,” He is is called lithos (Matt 21:42) and not petra, even though the word petra is used fifteen other times in the NT. This fact is very strange if St. Matthew wanted us to create a sharp contrast between Peter the petros and Jesus the petra in Matthew 16:18.
Moreover, although it’s not impossible that Jesus occasionally or even often spoke to His disciples in Greek, there’s very good evidence that Jesus’ discourse in Matthew 16:17-19 was in Aramaic. This is significant because, in Aramaic, there’s only one word for rock, “kepha,” meaning that Jesus’ original words to Peter would have been: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.” If this is what Jesus originally said to St. Peter, then it would unambiguously affirm that he is the rock foundation of the Church.
In order to see that Jesus spoke in Aramaic in this Matthean dialogue, consider what Ss. Paul and John tell us about St. Peter’s name. In his own writings, Paul almost exclusively refers to Peter as “Cephas,” which is a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha. This naturally begs the question, if Peter was originally called Petros, why would Paul translate this Greek name into Aramaic, only to transliterate it back into Greek? The more likely explanation is that Peter was well-known in the early Church as Kepha or Cephas because that’s the name Jesus originally gave him. Indeed, St. John records that, well before his interaction with Jesus at Caesarea Philippi, the Lord prophesied to Simon, “You shall be called Cephas, which means Peter” (Jn 1:42). The Apostle John, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, clarifies that the Greek name Petros is identical to the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means “rock.” In Heschmeyer’s words, “John is clear that Simon’s name is originally Aramaic, and is translated into Greek as Petros.”3 Since Jesus’ words here were also a direct prophecy of Matthew 16:18, this leaves absolutely no room for doubt about the proper translation of that text: “You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.” Peter is the rock.
Understanding this also helps explain why Matthew 16:18 uses two different words for “rock” in the first place. It was already explained how, by the time St. Matthew wrote his Gospel, the word petros had clearly fallen out of Greek vocabulary, since the entire NT uses it for nothing other than Peter’s name. The word petra, however, was still in use (e.g. Matt 7:24, 25; 27:51, 60), and so because Peter’s name Cephas was translated to Petros very early on (evidenced by the writings of Ss. Peter, Paul, and John), it seems that Matthew wanted his readers to understand that the name Petros meant that Peter is the petra of the Church. It certainly wasn’t intended to undermine the very word-play that our Lord was going for in His commission to St. Peter at Caesarea Philippi. Thus, once again, Peter is the rock.
Now perhaps you’re wondering, what’s the big deal? So what if St. Peter is the rock of the Church, aren’t there many traditional Protestants and Orthodox who would concede this? Well, to see the significance of this divinely revealed truth, consider what our Lord taught in His Sermon on the Mount. The Lord Jesus spoke of “a wise man who built his house on the rock” (Matt 7:24). When the rain fell, the floods came, and the wind blew on that house, “it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock” (Matt 7:25). This is the backdrop for Matthew 16:17-19, wherein Jesus shows Himself to be the wise man who builds His house on the rock of St. Peter. Importantly, it’s in this very context that Jesus promised, “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt 16:18). This clearly has the same intended meaning as Matthew 7:24-25: just as the wise man’s house didn’t fall because it was founded on the rock, so too will our Lord’s house always stand because it’s built on St. Peter. In other words, because Jesus made St. Peter the rock of His Church, somehow, this explains why the gates of hell will never prevail. What, in context, could ensure that Peter will be the firm foundation of the Church for all ages? It must be his possession of “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,” with which he can “bind” and “loose” on earth and in heaven for the salvation of God’s people (Matt 16:19).
Thus, because St. Peter’s ministry of being the rock and key-bearer of the Church is the means by which the Church can withstand the gates of hell, and because the latter promise lasts until the end of time, it follows that the Petrine ministry must also last until the end of time. In some way, the Apostle Peter must always remain the singular head of the Apostolic College until Christ returns, wielding the keys of the kingdom to stop the winds of false doctrine from blowing the Lord’s house down (cf. Eph 4:14). However, there’s an obvious problem with this picture. The man Simon Peter has been dead since the first century, and so how can it be said that he is the rock foundation of the Church today?
In order to better frame this question, let’s take a step back. Imagine we’re back in the first century. Peter, the Eleven, Timothy, and Titus are all still alive, and dozens of new ministers are being ordained everyday. At this stage in Church history, if someone were to ask who the rock and key-bearer of the Church is, what would the correct answer be? Surely it would have to be St. Peter, given nobody else, not even the other Apostles, was told, “You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church.” Someone else may be an Apostle, he may even be named Paul, but he’s not the Apostle chosen by Jesus to be the rock. The Apostles may have granted someone else a share in the power of the keys (by ordaining them to the priesthood), but the promise of being the Church’s rock and keeping the keys was still historically made to one man, and that man was Peter. Even if someone was ordained to the episcopate by Peter himself, the living Apostle would still retain the promises made exclusively to him. During St. Peter’s lifetime, nobody aside from himself could claim to possess those unique promises in an absolute sense.4
But now imagine it’s the day after blessed Peter’s martyrdom in Rome. News is spreading throughout the Roman Church that its episcopal head,5 who was “the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band… [and] the chief authority among the brethren,”6 has died. Would it have been reasonable to conclude that the Petrine ministry had died with him? Perhaps some would’ve thought this way, however, it seems that the bishops of Rome did not. As early as the 3rd century, we see the heads of the Roman Church explicitly claiming a unique succession from St. Peter that gives them a certain headship over the universal Church. This is evidenced by St. Firmillian of Caesarea (d. 269 A.D.), who recounts how, in an attempt to impose his teaching concerning the rebaptism of heretics on other churches, Pope St. Stephen I (d. 257 A.D.) “contend[ed] that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid.”7 A contemporary of St. Firmilian, St. Cyprian of Carthage (210-258 A.D.), would also attest to this claim, albeit in a more accepting manner: “[Rome is] the throne of Peter… the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source… to whom faithlessness could have no access.”8
Even prior to this, we see a unique kind of primacy and jurisdiction being enjoyed by the Roman Church on account of her “preeminent authority.” That line famously comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (130-202 A.D.), who, after mentioning that Rome was founded “by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,” taught that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [in Rome], on account of its potiorem principalitatem.”9 Although it’s not exactly clear what Irenaeus was grounding Rome’s pristine orthodoxy in (whether divine promise, apostolic foundation, or historical accident), it’s nonetheless clear that he believed that whatever Rome held to be the true faith, was the true faith. This teaching should be read against the backdrop of the bishop of Lyons’ run in with Pope St. Victor I (140-199 A.D.), the Pontiff who threatened to excommunicate the Asiatic churches for celebrating Easter on the same day as the Jewish Passover. According to Henry Chadwick, this was the “earliest known example of a Roman bishop exercising jurisdiction” outside of his territory.10 While Irenaeus strongly disagreed with Victor’s readiness to excommunicate other churches over the date of Easter, he nonetheless never questioned his authority to do so.11
To understand what was going on in the mind of the Roman Church at this time, the very Church with which St. Irenaeus tells us that “it is a matter of necessity” to agree, consider St. Victor’s successor, who reigned less than two decades after the Quartodeciman controversy. Like both his predecessor and future successor, St. Stephen, Pope St. Callixtus I (d. 222 A.D.) would also act as a “bishop of bishops,” a “Pontifex Maximus,” who issued “edicts” outside of his jurisdiction, which we know from the witness of Tertullian (160-220 A.D.).12 Given St. Stephen reigned just a few decades after St. Callixtus, it’s very unlikely that the former was the first Roman bishop to justify an exercise of universal jurisdiction by claiming that he “holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid.” Indeed, even as early as Pope St. Clement I (35-99 A.D.) we see that the Roman Church has uniquely concerned herself with the affairs of the universal Church,13 and it just cannot be lost on the historian that this started happening immediately after Rome became the final resting place of the Apostle to whom Jesus gave the care of His entire flock (Jn 21:17).14
Circling back to what happened after St. Peter’s death in Rome, I think the picture starts coming into focus: his unique ministry of presiding over the universal Church was given to a successor, the bishop of Rome. From the beginning, the Roman Church pieced together that if St. Peter was the one “on whom the foundations of the Church were laid,” and this role was supposed to last until the end of time, but the man himself didn’t live until the end of time, then it must be assumed by the man who succeeds the last office that Peter held, the Roman bishopric. The reason why it would have to be the last office he held, as opposed to just any office he ever held (like the Antiochian bishopric) is because, as stated above, Peter would have been the sole head of the universal Church until his death. This means that he couldn’t have had successors in the absolute sense while he was still alive, as it’s incoherent to speak of the Apostolic College having more than one head; what that would do is simply eliminate headship altogether, reducing all apostolic ministers down to being equals in every single way, which even most Protestants today agree isn’t a faithful reading of the Petrine texts.
Thus, if we admit that St. Peter had a unique headship over the Apostles by virtue of being the Church’s rock, and that the Lord promised His house would stand upon this rock until the end of time, then only Peter’s death could set the stage for a successor in the full sense of that term: a new individual as the head of the Apostolic/Episcopal College. Although it seems that Rome was the first See to fully grasp this, over time this “papal theory” would be accepted by the Holy Tradition’s highest authorities. For example, at the Third Ecumenical Council, the legate of the Roman Church, Philip the presbyter, made the following profession of faith:
We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable Synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members by our [or your] holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle. […]
There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith.15
This 5th century profession of Catholic ecclesiology neatly summarizes everything I’ve been discussing in this article. According to Philip, our Lord’s appointment of “blessed Peter the Apostle” as “the head of the Apostles” entails that the pope is “the holy head” of the Catholic Church today. This is because, as “it has been known in all ages,” the prince and head of the Apostles, blessed Peter, “down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors.” That only one man could be Peter’s successor at any given time is clear from Philip’s next statement: “The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place.” What place does the Roman Pontiff hold? That of being the “prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church.” Until when will the bishops of Rome hold this place? “Down even to today and forever.” Although not everything is explicitly laid out, it doesn’t take a genius to see how this line of reasoning only ends in one place: Vatican I. Did the fathers of the Council of Ephesus reject these claims? Not only did they not reject them, but St. Cyril of Alexandria himself said that Philip’s profession “stand[s] manifest to the holy Synod,”16 thereby revealing that papal supremacy was not just a teaching of the Roman Church, but rather the Third Ecumenical Council itself.
As time went on, Rome’s papal claims would only become more explicit and refined.17 And yet, during this entire time of claiming divine headship over the universal Church, patristic authorities of all times and places consistently pointed to Rome as the bulwark of theological orthodoxy. We saw that in the 2nd century, St. Irenaeus said that “it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [in Rome].”18 In the 3rd century, St. Cyprian likewise affirmed that “the Church of the Romans” is the one “to whom faithlessness could have no access.”19 In the 4th century, St. Gregory the Theologian taught that, “regarding the faith which they uphold, the ancient Rome has kept a straight course from of old, and still does so, uniting the whole West by sound teaching, and is just, since she presides over all and guards the universal divine harmony.”20 In the fifth century, Theodoret of Cyrus wrote, “This most sacred throne [Rome]... has been preserved from every stain of heresy and no one who thought the contrary has sat there, but instead it has preserved the grace of the apostles in tact.”21 In the sixth century, the Emperor Justinian taught that “the priests of Old Rome have followed apostolic doctrine in all things, have never differed among themselves, and to this day have kept the right and true doctrine.”22 In the seventh century, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem said that you could “wander from the edge of the earth to its outer limits until you come to the Apostolic See [of Rome], where the foundations of orthodox dogmas stand.”23 In the same century, St. Maximus the Confessor would summarize this patristic consensus on Rome’s orthodoxy:
For ever since the Word of God condescended to us and became man, all the Churches of Christians everywhere have held, and hold the great Church there [in Rome] as their sole basis and foundation, because, according to the very promises of the Lord, the gates of hell have never prevailed over her, but rather she has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession; she opens the genuine and only piety to those who approach her piously, but closes every heretical mouth that speaks injustice.24
During the entire time that Rome was loudly and proudly claiming that her bishop was the eternal successor of St. Peter, the rock and foundation of the universal Church, we hear almost nothing but enthusiastic endorsements of Rome’s doctrinal orthodoxy from the Tradition’s greatest authorities. Ultimately, if anyone wants to claim that their Church is the one founded by Christ Jesus, they must be able to show that St. Peter is still the rock of that Church, and the head of her ministers today. Regardless of whether or not you view the Tradition as infallible, I believe its authoritative witness nonetheless brings one to the conclusion that the bishop of Rome has the best historical claim to being St. Peter’s successor in this absolute sense. As I see it, neither the Patriarch of Constantinople, nor the Patriarch of Antioch, nor the Archbishop of Canterbury, nor any Lutheran, Reformed or Evangelical pastors have any serious claim to being the “prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church.” The best contender for that claim is and always has been the Roman Pontiff, and so it shall be until our Lord returns in the glory of His Father.
John MacArthur, “Empty Hearts,” Grace to You, June 8, 1980. Online, available at https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/2256/empty-hearts.
Joe Heschmeyer, Pope Peter: Defending the Church’s Most Distinctive Doctrine in a Time of Crisis, pp. 148-150 [Kindle ed.].
Ibid., p. 150 [Kindle ed.].
The term “absolute sense” is worth highlighting here. While it’s certainly true that we can speak of all monarchical bishops being the successor of St. Peter, this is in the sense that they are the rock and key-bearer of their particular Church. As such, local bishops are only the successors of Peter in a relative sense, because Peter was not just the rock and key-bearer of a local Church, but rather the universal Church, given he was the head of the Apostles who, at that time, constituted the entire episcopate. To speak of every monarchical bishop as the successor of Peter in an absolute sense would thus be logically incoherent, as what would it mean to say that every local bishop is the head of the universal Church? If all bishops were somehow the head of the Episcopal College, as St. Peter was the head of the Apostolic College, then there simply would be no Episcopal College, just a bunch of heads running around without a body.
That St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome can be known from bringing together the lists of apostolic succession given by St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Eusebius. Irenaeus mentions that “the blessed apostles” Peter and Paul, after establishing the Roman Church, “committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate” (Against Heresies, 3.2.3). However Eusebius, likely following Irenaeus, claims that it was only “after the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter” that “Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome” (Church History, 5.6.1). The harmony between these accounts is, I believe, subtly provided by Tertullian: “the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (Prescription Against Heretics, ch. 32). In his book, Apostolic Succession: Is It True?, Felix Cirlot points to this passage as evidence of an early technical definition of the word “ordination” (pp. 141-2). Whereas Polycarp was “placed” or “installed” as the bishop of Smyrna by the Apostle John, Tertullian recounts how Clement was “ordained” as a bishop by the Apostle Peter. Given this subtle distinction, I think we can piece together what happened in the first century Roman episcopate. Ss. Peter and Paul both established the Roman Church, and at least Peter ordained several Roman men to the sacramental episcopate, including Ss. Linus and Clement. However, none of these men actually lead the Roman Church during Peter’s lifetime because, as the leader of the entire Apostolic College, Peter himself would have obviously been the episcopal monarch of any church he went to, as is evidenced by his prior headship over the Church of Antioch (see Apostolic Constitutions, Book VII, Section 4). However, after Peter died, it made sense to elect as his successor a man who was personally ordained by Peter. Thus, although Ss. Linus and Clement weren’t directly installed as the bishops of Rome by Peter, they were chosen to be his successors because Peter had, prior to his death, shown his favor towards them by ordaining them as bishops. This likely explains why there’s a slight disagreement in the historical record over who exactly was the first bishop of Rome, Clement or Linus. Because they had both been ordained by Peter and both ended up succeeding his place in the Roman Church at one point, it’s easy to see how this confusion would arise.
St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on the Gospel of John.
St. Firmilian, Epistle 74, 17.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 54, 14. I’m very much aware of the fact that St. Cyprian likens all episcopal seats to “the throne of Peter,” however, he nonetheless reserves a unique place for Rome as the See of Peter par excellence. Indeed, for an extensive treatment of Cyprian’s ecclesiology, and how it logically entails the Catholic understanding of papal primacy, see Erick Ybarra, The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox, pp. 136-55.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2.
Henry Chadwick, “The Early Christian Community,” 36, cited from Ybarra, The Papacy, p. 131.
According to Eusebius, Irenaeus “fittingly admonishe[d] Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom” (Church History, 5.24.11). However, Irenaeus grounded his objection not in Victor overstepping his jurisdiction, but rather in a defense of the apostolicity of the Asiatic custom (5.24.12-18).
Tertullian, On Modesty, ch. 1.
I’m not arguing that 1 Clement directly bears witness to Vatican I’s definition of papal primacy, rather I’m making a cumulative historical case that Rome’s care for the universal Church extends back to her very foundation, her Petrine foundation.
It’s worth noting that, in the immediate context of entrusting St. Peter with the universal care of His Church, our Lord also prophesied the Apostle’s eventual death by crucifixion in Rome: “‘You [Peter] will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.’ This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God. And after saying this he said to him, ‘Follow me.’” (Jn 21:18-19).
Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), Session II-III, “Extracts From the Acts.”
Ibid.
For an excellent summary of the papal claims in the first millennium, see Hounds of the Lord’s YouTube video, “Major Proofs for Vatican I Papacy in the First Millennium.” Pay special attention to the witness of 5th-8th century popes, and consider it against the patristic testimony to Rome’s orthodoxy during that time.
St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.3.2.
St. Cyprian, Epistle 54, 14.
St. Gregory the Theologian, Carmen de Vita Sua, part 1, PG 37.1068, cited from Ybarra, The Papacy, p. 636.
Theodoret, Epistle 116, PG 83.1324, cited from Ybarra, The Papacy, p. 636.
Emperor Justinian, Code of Justinian, I.1.7, cited from Ybarra, The Papacy, p. 636.
St. Sophronius, “To Stephen of Dor,” Mansi 10.896, cited from Ybarra, The Papacy, p. 637.
St. Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, PG 91.137-40, cited from Scott Butler and John Collorafi, Keys Over the Christian World: Evidence for Papal Authority [33 A.D.- 800 A.D.] from Ancient Latin, Greek, Chaldean, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic and Ethiopian documents, pp. 352-353.