Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope:
” In Orthodox scholarship, too, there has been movement toward recognizing Peter himself as the rock. Orthodox theologian Theodore Stylianopoulos, after surveying recent developments in Orthodox scholarship, writes:
That Orthodox scholars have gradually moved in the direction of affirming the personal application of Matt 16:17-19 to the Apostle Peter must be applauded. From the standpoint of critical scholarship it can no longer be disputed that Jesus’ words to Peter as reported in Matt 16:17-19 confer a special distinction on Peter as “rock” — the foundation on which Christ promised to build his Church. … These points are now conceded by conservative Protestant scholars as well. (Kasper 48-49)”
Fr. Stykianopoulos, whom I know well, said this at a Vatican symposium in the fall of 2004:
“Peter is a pre-eminent figure in the New Testament, but not the only one.”
“No single apostolic figure enjoys universal dominance or exclusive authority in the New Testament,” he said. “In other words, the ‘primacy’ of Peter is not power over other apostolic figures, but an authorized leadership in the context of shared apostolic authority in the common life of the church.”
He's the "to to" guy.
Isn’t it extraordinary, K?...
...that Rome disregards the words of the church Father they revere above all, +Augustine of Hippo...
...when it suits their ends?
I’m a bit surprised at some of this article actually...Jimmy is usually very sharp and very careful but there are some strange things here. As to his statement that the Rock is not Peter’s Confession, well, I’ve read direct quotes from the Fathers who said otherwise. So who are we to dispute them?
My favorite exegetical way to look at Peter’s role lies in comparing the grant of authority in Matt 16 with Matt 18. It seems very deliberate here. The apostles are granted authority corporately in Matt 18 and it is the same authority that Peter individually is granted in Matt 16. That juxtaposition is interesting.
At the risk of becoming a broken record bringing up Met. Zizioulas for the umpteenth time, I really do like his formulation of no council without a protos, and no protos without a council, but the two always united. That really seems to be hitting at the essence of St. Matthew’s juxtaposition.
“Its a shame that this article presents such a half truth as this to make people think Orthodox theologians somehow or other accept the Vatican I heresy about the Pope”
How does the article do that? The question in the article is not “Vatican I heresy about the Pope,” the question is whether Peter is the rock. Fr. Stylianopoulos is quoted regarding whether Peter is the rock, not regarding the supremacy of the Pope or the relative prominence of Peter vs. others in the New Testament.
If people would only read what is written and not what they think is being said, the world would be a better place.