Saints Peter and John: two chief apostles

Contents I • II • III • IV • V • VI • VII • VIII • IX • X During the days of the Savior’s earthly life, He was always surrounded by a multitude of people (Matthew 4:25. 9, 36. Luke 6:17) to listen to the divine teaching and behold His miracles. But among this ever-changing multitude there were also those who were once and for all kept in His proximity, “followed Him and served Him” (Mark 15:41). There were also such chosen ones whom the Lord loved, “Martha, her sister and Lazarus” (John 11, 5. 11, 36), the “friend” of the Lord (“Lazarus, my friend, fell asleep” John 11, 11). And, finally, there were the apostles, deliberately called by Him to be witnesses of “His deeds and teachings” (DA 1, 8), chosen by the Knower of the Heart from all the people of the chosen people. He called them personally and by name (Matthew 4, 18–21. 10, 1–5. 3, 16–19. Luke 6, 13–16, Mark 1, 16–19) with a special solemn election, expressed in these words by the evangelists: “he went up the mountain and called them to Himself, whom He Himself wanted - οὔς ἤθελεν αὐτος and appointed - ἐποίησεν - (of them) twelve, so that they would be with Him and to send them to preach, and so that they would have the power to heal diseases and cast out demons” (Mr. 3, 13-14), and, according to the testimony of St. Luke, on the eve of this day He spent the whole night in prayer: “In those days He went up to the mountain to pray, and spent the whole night in prayer to God. When the day came, He called His disciples and chose from them - twelve, whom He called apostles" (Luke 6:12-13). He made them witnesses of miracles, He addressed His teachings to them, He explained parables to them privately, He sent them to preach (Matthew 10, 5 ff. Mark 3, 14-15. Luke 9, 1-6). In addition to the twelve (οἰ δώδεκα), there were another seventy disciples who were also sent to preach (Luke 10:1-16) and about whom He Himself testified that their names were written in heaven (Luke 10:20). And turning to them, He said: “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear” (Luke 10:23-4). The holy apostles and chosen ones of Christ formed a hierarchy established by Him, the degrees of which were determined by their approach to Him: not only those who followed Him and those who served Him from their estates (Luke 8:2-3) were the apostles, and not only the seventy, but the twelve. There were also differences within the twelve in personal closeness to the Teacher: thus three definitely stand out from the twelve: Peter, James and John, who are chosen by Him to be spectators of the mysteries of God: They are the only ones allowed by Him to be present at the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (Mark 5:37, Luke 8:51), together with their father and mother, only they alone - μόνους - deliberately - κάτ’ ιδίαν – are called to the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:2; Luke 9:28). He takes only three of them to the Garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26, 37. Mk. 14, 33) to attend the prayer struggle. Finally, they, together with Andrei (the only case of the quaternity) on the Mount of Olives, listen to speeches about the end of the world. Of these, James, the brother of John, was beheaded by the sword in the persecution of Herod (DA 12:2) and became the first martyr among the apostles. In addition to this trinity, among the apostles there are also duos: the Lord chooses not individually, but in duos friends or brothers: Peter and Andrew, James and John, the sons of Zebedee, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew, James Alphaeus and Levbeus, nicknamed Thaddeus, Simon the Canaanite and Judas Iscariot (Matthew 10:2-4), and they also preach sent in twos (δύο-δύο) (Matt. 6:7), as well as the seventy (Luke 10). However, these friendly twos do not have a hierarchical meaning and only indicate the internal structure of the host of the apostolic “obanadec.” But there is one duo that has primary and, moreover, hierarchical significance: these are Peter and John. But in order to comprehend its meaning, we must first find out the place among the twelve that belongs to each of these apostles individually, for they have their own special and unique position. Let's start with Peter. It is known how important the question of Petrov’s “primacy” was in the conflict between the Eastern and Western churches. In the centuries-old controversy caused by this discord, from Photius (9th century) to the present day, this issue has been subjected to comprehensive study and discussion, and it seems that every detail has been studied and discussed in it. Therefore, here it is enough to reproduce the results of the study already done. Naturally, special attention to the special position of St. Peter, among other disciples, is dedicated to Catholic theology. 1 That Peter has a special and, moreover, a leading place among the other apostles, against this, of course, there cannot be an honest and reasonable dispute. You can argue about the meaning and significance of this fact, but not about the fact itself - to argue about it means opposing the will of the Lord himself and His election. Peter takes precedence among the apostles; in a sense, he is the center of the twelve. And this position of his, the special significance of his ministry, is revealed from a comparison of numerous details, individually insignificant, but collectively expressive, along with the main events of his life and the sayings of the Lord relating to him. Let's start with the particulars and details in order to then turn to the basic texts. "Petrum Christus expollit frequenter prae ceteris" (d'Herbigny I, 213). 1. Change of name, which is noted among all the evangelists: Luke. 6, 14: “Simon, whom he called Peter, and Andrew his brother”; Matt. 10, 2: “the first Simon, called Peter, and Andrew his brother”; Mr. 3, 16: (set) “Simon, calling his name Peter”; Io. 1:42: “(Andrew) brought (Simon) to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; you will be called Cephas - which means stone - σὺ κληθήση κηφας (ὀ έρμγνεύεται Πέτρος). The importance of renaming (nomen omen) in the Old Testament is sufficiently clear from a comparison of its most important cases: Abram - Abraham (Gen. 17, 5), Jacob - Israel (Gen. 32, 28. 35, 10). The meaning of the renaming will be clarified later. It is noteworthy that of the other apostles, only James and John receive the name given by the Lord: Boanerges, that is, the sons of Thunder (Mark 3:17), therefore, the entire first trinity of apostles, this threefold collective center of the duodenum, is marked with a special renaming. If we consider the renaming of Petrovo in the prophetic light of the upcoming conversation on the way to Caesarea Philippi, then, of course, the second renaming should not be reduced to a hint of a misunderstanding with the fire against the Samaritans (Luke 9:52-6), but we must also see in it an indication of the special calling of the sons of Zebedee, and, in particular, John (we will note this for the future.). 2. Peter is named first in the list of apostles: Matt. 10, 2–5, Mr. 3, 16–20, Luke. 6, 14–16, D. A. 1, 13; also among the three chosen: Lk. 8, 51, Mr. 5, 37 (at the resurrection of Jairus’ daughter); OK. 9, 28, Matt. 17, 1, Mr. 9, 2 (transformation); Matt. 26, 37, Mr. 14, 33, (Garden of Gethsemane); expression to designate the apostolic college: Peter and others like him Σίμων καὶ οἱ μετ' ἀὑτοῦ. Mr. 1, 36, Lk. 8, 45, 9, 32, D. A. 2, 14. 3. Christ uses Peter's boat and his house as his own: Lk. 5, 3–10, a story about a wonderful fishing trip. And in other cases, when τὸ πλοῖον, boat, is mentioned (Mark 4, 36 ff., 6, 45 ff., Matt. 8, 23; 14, 22), when contrasted with ἄλλα πλοῖα, one can mean Petrov’s boat. In Capernaum, Christ comes to the house of Peter (Matt. 8:14, Lk. 4:38, Mt. 1:29), which becomes so famous that everyone comes to his door (Mt. 1:33, Mt. 8:16, Lk. 4:40). The house of Peter should be understood when it says simply a house (Mr. 2, 1, Mk. 3, 20, Mk. 7, 17, Mt. 9, 10, 28; 13, 1, 36). In Peter's house there is a story about the payment of taxes, which is also entrusted to Peter: “give it to them for me and for yourself” (Matthew 17:25-27). D'Herbigny, 1. 215–16 2. 4. This also includes all the cases of Peter’s primacy described in the Acts of the Apostles: his leading role in the election of the apostle to the place of Judas (DA 1, 15–22); the first preaches after Pentecost D.A. 2, 14-36), the first performs the miracle of healing the lame (D.A. 3, 4-7), preaches in the temple (3, 12-26), answers before the Sanhedrin (4:8-13), strikes Ananias (5, 1-11), the first receives pagans into the church (10), opens the Apostolic Council with a speech (15, 11), “Petrus ergo, verbis et actibus Domini, certis praelatus est Apostolis” (1, 222); praxi apostolica, sicut et Christi dictis gestisque, patet singularis eminentia prae cunctis (227) and this eminentiam the Catholic theologian, as usual, tries to protect from the doubts that are caused by the corresponding judgments and statements of St. Paul (1 Cor. 1, 11–12; 3, 21–23 and especially Gal. 1, 17; 2, 8–9). At the same time, one does not have to turn a blind eye to the case when Peter does not have such a role, and the twelve act directly as a living unity. We have such a case during the installation of deacons, that is, at the very first steps of the apostolate: D. A. 6, 2 ff: “Then the twelve (οἰ δώδεκα), having called together many disciples, said: it is not good for us, leaving the word of God, to take care of the tables... And this proposal was pleasing to the whole assembly, and they elected Stephen and others, they were placed before the Apostles and (they) prayed and laid their hands on them.” The first ordination was carried out by the “twelve”, an apostolic council without any special role of the “primacy” of the Apostle Peter. However, all these, both indisputable and controversial features, testifying to the special position of Peter among the apostles, receive full meaning and significance only in connection with the main (“solemniores”) texts in which the “primacy” of Peter is established. As you know, there are three of these texts: – Matt. 16, 17–19; OK. 22, 31–2; Io, 21, 15–17. You need to contact them. Let us first reproduce the first and most basic text, establishing the special election of Petrovo among the other apostles: “Having come to the countries of Caesarea Philippi, Jesus asks His disciples: Who do people say that I, the Son of Man, am? They said: some for John the Baptist, others for Elijah, and others for Jeremiah or one of the prophets. He says to them: Who do you say that I am? Simon Peter answered and said: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:13–16). So, the Lord asked all His disciples first about who people say He is, and the disciples answered, obviously in a casual conversation, each expressing his own observations, so that the answers were naturally different: some heard that he was John the Baptist, others - Elijah, others - Jeremiah or one of the prophets. And since the answers were different, many (if not all) answered. And then the Lord addressed a question to them all, to which, although many answers have been given and are being given, there should be only one. These many answers did not follow, because the answer turned out to be one, unique and unconditional. By whom and how could it have been expressed? Here, disagreement and polyphony would be inappropriate and even impossible: one and the other. Everyone answered as one and through one, and with this one, the representative of the entire apostolic rank, as if the elder of the apostleship, Peter appeared, who answered for everyone, as it is said directly in the Gospel: “Who do you say that I am? Peter answered (ἁποκριθείς) and said.” And that he expressed not just his personal opinion, but appeared through the mouth of the entire apostolate, this is clear from the entire context, where the silence of the other apostles cannot be understood other than tacit agreement with Peter’s confession. The latter accomplished the feat of faith and for this the Lord pleases him. “Then Jesus answered and said to him: Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for it was not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). Testifying that Peter was worthy to become here an organ of divine inspiration, the Lord is with him and in his person 3 and the entire apostolic rank, whose common faith Peter professed, is blessed. And that this was, indeed, a common faith is clear from the further narration of the Gospel. Not only were there no questions or bewilderments on the part of the students, which were usual for them in cases of confusion, but, obviously, complete agreement reigned. This is clear from further words: “Then he forbade his disciples, so that they should not tell anyone that He is Jesus Christ” (Matthew 16:20). This means that all the apostles knew this. This same feature appears even more clearly in the more condensed, but therefore more expressive narration of the same thing in Ev. Mark and ev. Luke. Mr. 8, 29–30: “He says to them: Who do you say that I am? Peter answered Him: You are the Christ. And he forbade them not to tell anyone about Him.” This short story cannot be understood otherwise than in the sense that Peter answered for everyone and on behalf of everyone, and what everyone thought. Wed. OK. 9, 20–21: “He asked them, Who do you say that I am? Peter answered: for the Christ of God. But he strictly ordered them not to tell anyone about this.” Story by Ev. Luke here completely coincides with the story of St. Brand. Both of these narratives are in relation to a more extensive story in Ev. Matthew gives a diagram of the event, quite clear there too, which leaves no doubt that the confession of Peter belongs inseparably to all the apostles, and Peter here is the mouth of the apostles. Therefore, without belittling the importance of Peter, who was given here to act as the representative of the entire apostolate, one should not for a moment lose sight of the dual nature of this speech, personal and collective, in order to properly understand the promise of the Savior addressed to him. Peter tended to speak on behalf of all the apostles, due to the swiftness of his temperament (and not always manifested in an equally favorable sense for him), as we already know: when Christ walked on the sea, Peter rushes to meet Him, but is frightened and hears the Teacher’s reproach for lack of faith (Matthew 14:28-31), falls at the knees of Jesus after a miraculous catch, testifying to his sinfulness (Luke 5:8); reproaches Christ after His speech about suffering (Matt. 16, 23); asks on behalf of all the disciples: “Now we have left everything and followed You, what will happen to us? (Matthew 19:27, Luke 12:41). Peter repeatedly answers from among those around him, as when healing a bleeding woman: Lk. 7, 45; 12, 41; 13, 36; 11, 21; asks for an explanation of the parable: Matt. 8, 29, Lk. 9, 28; on the Mount of Transfiguration, Peter wants to build three tabernacles: Mr. 9, 5, Matt. 17, 4, Lk. 9, 33; resists foot washing: Io. 13:6, asks for an explanation of the parable: Matt. 15, 15; answers on behalf of the twelve: “Lord, to whom should we go? Io. 6, 68; claims that if everyone is offended, he will not be offended: Mk. 14, 29, Matt. 26, 33, Wed. OK. 22, 33, Io. 13, 37, (to which he hears in response a prophecy about his renunciation), resists the washing of feet: Io. 13, 6–9; tries to protect the Teacher with a sword, for which he also deserved censure: Io. 18, 10–11, Matt. 26, 51–4. So, in Peter’s answer on behalf of all the apostles there was nothing unusual at all; it corresponded, first of all, to his personal character, in addition to his special powers in the apostolic environment. However, in this case, exceptional in its importance and solemnity, this authority to speak one for all is tacitly granted to him by all the apostles, and, most importantly, confirmed by Christ himself, who in his person addresses the entire apostolate, recognizing him as his representative, so to speak, affirming him in primacy. However, it is not true that the significance of the answer is associated only with its content. It cannot be argued that Peter was the first to express faith in Jesus as the Christ and Son of God. This confession was repeatedly pronounced earlier, according to the narrative of the Gospel, already at the first calling of the apostles. Nathanael (Bartholomew), one of the twelve, who was present, therefore, on the way to Caesarea, in response to the words of Christ that he saw him under the fig tree, pronounces the confession of Peter: “Rabbi! You are the Son of God, You are the King of Israel.” Jesus answered him: “You believe because I said to you: “I saw you under the fig tree,” you will see more than this” (John I, 49-50). John the Baptist testified to the same thing before his disciples: “I am not the Christ, but I am sent before Him... He whom God has sent speaks the words of God... The Father loves the Son and has given all things into His hand. He who believes in the Son has eternal life” (John 3:28–35). The Samaritan wife, to whom the Lord revealed himself, received this same faith from the Savior himself and testified to her compatriots: “The woman said to Him: I know that the Messiah will come, that is, Christ; when He comes, He will tell us everything. Jesus said to her: It is I who speak to you... Then the woman left her waterpot and went into the city and said to the people: “Come, see the man who told me all things that I have done: is not this the Christ?... And the Samaritans said to that woman: we no longer believe because of your words, for we ourselves have heard and known that He is truly the Savior of the world - the Christ” (John 4, 25-6, 28-9, 42). Further, Peter himself had earlier, under different circumstances, pronounced the same confession of faith and again on behalf of the twelve, as their elder or representative, although less attention is usually paid to this confession, because it was not followed by the pleasing of Peter. “Then Jesus said to the twelve, “Will you also go away?” Simon Peter answered Him: Lord! who should we go to? You have the verbs of eternal life. And we believed and knew that You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Jesus answered them: Have I not chosen you twelve? but one of you is the devil.” (John 6, 67–70) The healed man born blind confessed his faith in Christ as the Son of God, in response to His direct question (John 8, 35–8). The same faith was confessed by Martha, the sister of Mary and Lazarus, in a conversation with the Lord before the resurrection of Lazarus (10.11, 27): “So, Lord! I believe that You are the Christ, the Son of God, coming into the world.” We must not forget that the divinity of Jesus was repeatedly, in the ears of the apostles, confessed by “believing, but trembling” (James 2:19) demons. So in the country of Gergesin, “they shouted: What do you have to do with us, Jesus, Son of God?” (Matthew 8:29). “Jesus, the Son of the Most High God” (Mr. 5, 7., Lk. 8, 28, Wed. Mr. 1, 24). “The Lord, casting out demons, did not allow the demons to say that they knew that He was Christ” (Mark 1:34). “And the unclean spirits, when they saw Him, fell down before Him and cried out: You are the Son of God. But He strictly forbade them so that they would not make Him known” (Mark 3:11-12). “Many demons also came out shouting and saying: You are the Christ, the Son of God. And He forbade them to say that they know that He is Christ (Luke 4:41). The devil, who tempted in the desert, still doubted and asked: “If you are the Son of God” (Matthew 3, 3,6, Luke 4, 3, 9), but now these doubts gave way, obviously, to knowledge and forced, against the will, frenzied confession, which became a common, constantly recurring phenomenon. The blind, who persistently sought healing and received it for their faith, cried out: “Have mercy on us, Jesus, Son of David” (Matthew 9:27, 20, 31, Mark 10:47–8). Of course, this is not the full confession of Peter, but, in any case, the first step towards it, for the “Son of David” is the promised Messiah. Finally, we should not forget that even earlier than the Caesarean confession of Peter, it was pronounced precisely by all the other apostles, besides him, after his unsuccessful walk on the water: “and when they (Jesus and Peter) entered the boat, the wind subsided. Those who were in the boat came up, worshiped Him, and said: “Truly You are the Son of God” (Matthew 14:38). From all these testimonies it is clear that the confession of Christ as the Son of God, like lightning, repeatedly cut through the atmosphere surrounding Him. Therefore, it is not so much the content of the solemn confession in itself, by its novelty, that gives such significance to the words of Peter, but rather the very significance of this moment that gives them such exceptional weight. In the spiritual development of the disciples, in their preparation for the terrible Gethsemane and Calvary test of faith, this moment has the significance of a turning point, after which the Lord directly and definitely begins to prepare them for what is to come. “From that time Jesus began to reveal to His disciples that He must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes and be killed and on the third day rise again.” (Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31–2, Luke 9:22). The Lord wanted to strengthen the seed of faith in the disciples in the face of a terrible trial. And, however, how vague even in Peter the awareness of what was happening and weak readiness for the future is evident from the way he immediately began to contradict the Teacher, and with what haste he wants to build three tabernacles on the Mount of Transfiguration, clearly forgetting or passing by the formidable foreshadowing of the upcoming suffering. The other apostles can be judged by the laconic and expressive remark in Mark 10:32: “When they were on the way, going up to Jerusalem, Jesus walked ahead of them, and they were terrified and, following Him, were in fear.” Directly after the conversation on the way to Caesarea Philippi, according to all three weather forecasters, follows the Transfiguration, which is already a preparation for Golgotha, in some way a preliminary internal result of the Savior’s earthly journey: in response to the confession of faith pronounced by Peter, some of them (i.e., the three) are given “not to taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” (Matt. 16, 28 - Mark 9, 1 - Luke 9, 27). From the Mount of Transfiguration, through the glorious entrance to Jerusalem, the path lies to Golgotha. The Transfiguration, together with the solemn entry into Jerusalem, was the Lord’s response to the confession of faith of all the disciples, pronounced through the lips of Peter; it was a preview of His coming glory and, therefore, a preliminary justification of faith. But even in his immediate answer, the Lord wants to imprint in the minds of the disciples, at this critical and turning point for their development, their ultimate high calling, which was still vaguely visible to them in the fog of Jewish national dreams and human weaknesses. This calling is to be ministers and the foundation of the Church of Christ. The definition of this calling is served by the words of the Lord, directly addressed to Peter, but relating to all twelve. These solemn words are usually seen as the establishment of Petrov’s “primacy”. Let us try, in connection with the previous one, to understand their meaning. “And I say to you: you are Peter (Πέτρος) and on this stone - Peter (πέτρα) I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” (Matthew 16:18–19). It is interesting that in the Gospel of Mark, which has the greatest connection with Peter, these words are absent, as well as in the Gospel of Luke. This text in Roman theology is considered to establish the primacy of jurisdiction, that is, the direct and immediate authority of Peter (and his successors in the Roman see) over all the apostles (and their successors) (Vat. IV, 1). According to d’Herbigny (general and all Catholic theology) exegesis textus demonstrat promisstim fuisse Petro primatum iurisdictionis (1. c. I, 247, 250). Thus, his interpretation introduces the basic concept of Latin theology, which is crucial for understanding the primacy of Petrov in the Western sense, as the fullness of church power, plena potestas, the “monarchical” structure of the church under the leadership of the “prince of the apostles” in his successors. In order not to lose the correct perspective in understanding the text of Matt. 16, 17–19, we must always keep in mind the firmly established fact that Peter alone answers for everyone and on behalf of everyone to the question presented to everyone. The thing, after all, does not happen the same way as in a classroom lesson, where the teacher asks everyone a question: who knows? and only the one who knows (or the upstart) answers, and the rest do not know, and learn only from the answer of the lively student. What Peter answers is known, the apostles are aware, and this is their answer. In Vatican Council terms, Peter is not speaking here ex sese, sine consensu ecclesiae, but precisely sancto approbante consilio. An apostolic ecumenical council takes place to establish the stone of faith in the clear presence of the Head of the Church and in the clear primacy of Peter the Apostle. This fact that there is a council of the apostles taking place here, and the Lord wants a response to define the entire face of the apostles, and at the same time that the head of this face is Peter, cannot be diminished in its significance. It is wrong to separate Peter from the others in order to oppose him to the council, exalting him at the expense of the council with the primacy of power and jurisdiction, placing him above the council, while he has power and authority, or is Peter, only in connection with the council, the power of the council and on behalf of the council. Only in the light of this basic fact do we perceive the words of Christ: in response to your confession, in which you announced not a human (“not flesh and blood”) fabrication, but a divine revelation, and “I say to you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” There has been a long-standing dispute between theologians of the East and West as to whether the stone signifies the πέτρα, Peter, or his faith and confession, with various exegetical and philological considerations being invoked on both sides. There is no doubt that this phrase is built on a play on words, on the double meaning of the name Κηφάς, Πέτρος - πέτρα, which means both the name Peter and the stone. With this play on words, speaking formally, both permutations of subject and predicate are equally possible: Peter is the stone on which the church is established and, conversely, the stone, i.e. Peter’s faith, his confession, is Peter, i.e. it precisely makes Peter Peter. Both members of this amphiboly have an indisputable basis in the Gospel. That the property of being a stone, cepha, petra in some sense relates to Peter, this is clear from the fact that this was specifically said to him, addressed to him by the Lord, who not only said, but also foretold this property in Peter in advance, calling him by this name at the first meeting. The whole power and meaning of this sacred prophetic renaming, in which the divine knowledge of the heart was manifested (them he ordained, those he called. Rom. 8:30), can be understood only in the light of the event under consideration: the naming of the name of Peter is a prophecy about an event on the way to Caesarea Philippi, when this naming is repeated again: “you are Peter” and, as it were, carried out through his faith. And yet, Simon’s ability to be Peter is connected only with a certain state of his, with his being in the true faith, which is at the same time the faith of the Church, that is, the entire apostolic face. As soon as Peter ceases to be the bearer and exponent of this faith and becomes a victim of his personal properties or weaknesses, separating into personal isolation from the universal and whole, he ceases to be Peter, that is, the stone of faith. This is shown with dazzling brightness in the further conversation of the Lord with the disciples on the way to Caesarea Philippi in His words, which constitute the most necessary and essential commentary on the blessing of Peter, its direct continuation and interpretation. It was when the Lord, continuing his speech, began to talk about His sufferings, “having called Him away, Peter began to rebuke Him: Be merciful to Yourself, Lord, let this not happen to You. He turned and said to Peter: Get away from me, Satan! You are a temptation to me, because you think not about what is divine, but about what is human” (Matthew 16:22-3). Already human, i.e. what “flesh and blood” says, Peter expresses immediately as soon as he says “having called it away,” therefore from himself, with his human limitations. Infallibilitas, infallibility, the ability to proclaim not human, not the voice of flesh and blood, but divine revelation, turned out to be inherent in him only truly “ex cathedra,” that is, when he spoke in the name, in agreement, with the power of the entire unanimous apostolic council, as the mouth its primate; but as soon as he acts simply ex sese, alone, a sad temptation befalls him, and he is no longer Peter, but “Satan” 4. Thus, when understanding Christ’s words about Peter as the rock of the Church, it is indeed impossible to exclude the moment of right faith revealed in Peter’s confession, just as it is impossible to exclude the personality of Peter, awarded such a confession by divine providence. Peter’s confession does not belong to him, but to the entire apostolic face, to which the Lord speaks, continuing his conversation with everyone and not interrupting it at all (as is especially clear from the parallels of other weather forecasters), however, in the person of Peter. Therefore, it cannot be denied that Peter here is the focus, the representative, the primate of the apostolate, its living center, and in this sense we can say that here Peter’s special role among the apostles is not established, but revealed, which was previously indicated when he was renamed, and then continuously manifested and realized in a number of small and everyday events, according to the Gospel story (see above). This primacy belonged to Peter from the first day of his apostleship, and it cannot be said that it was established as something new at this moment. If we attach such a decisive significance to this particular moment, then we would have to come to the absurd statement that the primacy given to Peter was immediately taken away from him, because immediately after the words: you are Peter, he was told: Satan! In Peter’s position in relation to the other apostles after this event, nothing noticeably changed, just as no decisive difference can be drawn between the role of Peter before the Ascension, when the personal presence of the Lord, of course, made Peter’s importance fade, and after the Ascension. Peter invariably remained inherent in the position and authority of primacy, the elder of the apostles. This is not, of course, plena potestas or primatus iurisdictionis or power episcopus universalis, but it is undoubtedly the primacy of representation, authority, primacy, which, under appropriate favorable conditions, can expand unlimitedly, but cannot be expressed in terms of power. Authority is also power, it contains it as a certain consequence, but power is not authority. Primatus iurisdictionis in this sense contains the same internal contradiction as the reverse formula: primus inter pares, for primus is already different from pares, just as the bearer of power is no longer primus, but the only one of its kind, which exists not with everyone and among everyone, like the first, but in opposition to them. Therefore, if on one side the desire for parity leads to the actual destruction of primacy as authority, in all the meaningfulness and ambiguity (historical) of this concept, then on the other side, primacy, despite all the assurances and reservations, absorbs in itself the apostolate and the bishopric derived from it and therefore is no longer primacy, which presupposes, after the first, next to it, second ones of the same rank, but there is, indeed, a monarchy, and, moreover, the most absolute type. The monarch is not, of course, a primus, but a princeps, the only and incomparable one. In other words, in this sense, primacy is already a special rank, qualitatively different from apostleship, just as the Chief Shepherd Christ is qualitatively different from the apostles. Therefore, the Apostle Peter, according to this logic, is a super-apostle, that is, he is no longer an apostle. However, let’s leave the theology about primacy and turn to the analysis of the Gospel text. So, if earlier the conversation was with all the apostles, the question was posed by them all together and was answered for everyone and undoubtedly in agreement with all the apostles. Peter, then the Savior’s answer in his person was addressed to everyone and throughout its entire duration retains a dual character, this double address - to Peter and the host. And the most personal part of the answer has the same character, namely the direct appeal of the Lord to Peter, where he calls him by name, but in order to immediately point out the symbolic meaning of this name, move on to what should constitute not only a personal name and personal property, but also a common faith and a common foundation for all the apostles, from Peter the Stone to Peter the Stone 5, and in Peter’s personal faith an example and confirmation in faith for the apostles is indicated. Therefore, the Lord’s response thought can be expressed in such a common paraphrase: “to the extent that you are confirmed in this confession of faith, which is also common apostolic, you are worthy of the name given to you, you are yourself, as God willed you in your naming: You are Peter (but to the extent that you do not hold on to this common apostolic confession and fall away from it, you are not worthy of the name Peter 6) and you may even deserve another name: Satan!) So, according to the general meaning of the text, “Peter - Peter, the stone”, first of all and most directly refers to Peter, as the personal bearer and focus of the element of Petrineness, but it is equally necessary for all the apostles (and in the person of them the whole church) to the extent that they are affirmed in the same element of Petrineness, and in this sense the stone is the faith and confession of the entire Apostolic Church, “as you are.” Christ, Son of the Living God." And this double meaning - both general and personal - is confirmed by further text, the promises of the Savior given to Peter. And these promises, which directly and personally relate specifically to Peter, are given with him and in his person to the entire apostolate, along with his hierarchical successors. This promise concerns the power to knit and decide. In general form, it is expressed figuratively in the promise to Peter of the keys of the Kingdom, and this power of the keys is accompanied by the power to decide and knit, or rather, this is precisely what it consists of. First of all, it is necessary to establish that the power to bind and resolve, directly promised to Peter alone, in fact, in his person, applies to all the apostles, as is completely clear in the subsequent narrative... Namely, the promise to bind and resolve was repeated verbatim to all the apostles, this time without any emphasis on Peter, shortly after the present conversation, during their stay in Galilee after the Transfiguration. The disciples turned to Jesus with the question of who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? The thought of “primacy” obviously seduced and disturbed them, perhaps as a refracted impression from a conversation on the way to Caesarea. The knowledge of the secrets of the Kingdom of God entered the minds of the disciples slowly and not without obstacles, which explains their repeated confusion about primacy (cf. Matt. 20, 20-21, 24-27; Mark 10, 35-44. 22. 24-26) 7. In his answer, the Lord rejects the very formulation of the question of seniority and earthly power (“whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven,” Matthew 18:4), thus establishing only one power and seniority - humility, in which the very thoughts of power and right are silent. Developing further the same thought, but in a negative form, precisely warning against all contempt for “these little ones” (and at the same time self-exaltation), the Lord, outwardly unexpectedly, but internally quite motivated, moves on to the teaching about the Church, which alone possesses the power and authority to demand obedience under the threat of spiritual cutting off. And the power of this cutting off, indeed, as a munus or ordo, as a rank, the Lord solemnly (“Amen I say to you”) hands over to the apostles, without any singling out of anyone from them, and the promise given to Peter is literally reproduced: “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven; and whatever you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.” (Matthew 18:18). In this we see direct and authentic confirmation that what was said to Peter applied in his person and to all the apostles, and we are not talking about the power of primacy, but about the power of the apostle, in his “conciliarity.” And it is precisely this moment, the strength and foundation of the Church in conciliarity, in plurality, and not in power, that is definitely indicated in the continuation of Christ’s words about the Church: “again, I tell you that if two of you agree on earth to ask for anything, then whatever they ask will be done for them by the Heavenly Father. For where two or three are gathered in My Name, there am I in their midst” (Matthew 18:9-20). Gathering in His Name, conciliarity, multi-unity in the image of the Holy Trinity (as You are in Me and I am in You) - this is the strength of the Church, its nature or nature. Based on the above, the narrative in chapter 18. We consider Matthew to be a direct internal development and continuation of what was told in chapter 16. But it is especially remarkable that in the later Gospel of John, so different in plan, this same promise is repeated, if not literally, then in meaning, but as already being fulfilled: “As the Father has sent Me, so I send you. Having said this, he blew and said to them: Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven; on whomever you leave it, it will remain on him” (John 20:21-23). There is no emphasis on Peter here, and yet the promise given, it would seem, directly to him is fulfilled 8 . And there is no emphasis on this, not even a mention of it during the solemn sending of the disciples to preach to all creation after the resurrection and before the ascension: Matt. 28, 18–20, Mr. 16, 15–19, Lk. 24, 48–50, D. Ap. 18.2, 1–4. There is also no indication that Peter received any single primacy power, unlike the other apostles: the promise given to him was fulfilled with precision, but for everyone. However, there still remains the promise given personally to Peter and not repeated by another apostle: “and I will give you the keys of the kingdom.” Regarding this metaphor, careful exegesis is carried out, establishing the meaning of handing over the keys to the “key holder” as a sign of the highest authority *). Naturally, the question arises: does this image contain any deliberate promise relating to Peter alone, or does it express only a general idea about the power of the hierarchy, not limited to the area of ​​earthly existence, but extending into another world, into “heaven,” into eternal life? There are no other grounds for separating this part of the Savior’s promise from its other part, fulfilled in relation to all the apostles, except that it remains not repeated in relation to the other apostles, but it also remains unfulfilled in relation to Peter, at least there is no indication of this. And this makes us think that it is not a separate promise, specifically containing the rights of primacy, and, therefore, to the same extent, applies to all the apostles. Potestas clavium belongs to the entire apostolic body, but the keys are directly handed over to the cleric, as the chief apostle 9. So, in Matt. 16, 17–19 we do not find the establishment of a special authority of Peter, distinguishing Peter from the other apostles and placing him above them, above them, introducing a hierarchical distinction among the twelve. This is not the case: all power is promised and then given to all twelve on an equal basis, with the undeniable primacy of Peter as their primate or their spiritual center. The twelve have their own rank and structure and therefore have their own representative, the “key,” but they do not have a hierarchy within themselves, and in the absence of differences in the ordo, there is no basis for differences in the iuris-dictio 10. Peter does not have the right, but only the authority. In the light of this understanding of the main text, which has the significance of a key position, the other two “institutional” texts, which already have a predominantly personal and biographical relationship to Peter, are interpreted: Lk. 22, 31 and Jo. 21, 15–17. Let's start with Luke. 22, 31–32: “And the Lord said: Simon! This is what Satan asked to sow you like wheat. But I prayed for you, so that your faith would not fail, and you, having once turned, strengthen your brothers.” The most immediate meaning of these words refers to the dangers that threatened Peter, associated with Peter’s character, his ardor, combined with ignorance of himself. Direct evidence of this is given in further verses: Peter did not hear the sorrowful warning with his inner ear, did not realize his weakness in himself before it was discovered, and, as more than once before, he mistook his temperament and emotionality for strength and firmness: “He answered Him: “Lord! I am ready to go with You to prison and to death” (Luke 22:33), and then the Lord directly anticipates him about the upcoming renunciation (although even after this Peter at that moment was not embarrassed even by such a direct prophecy, otherwise he would not have intended to defend Christ with the sword). A terrible danger and a terrible test awaited all the disciples, but the “elder” was most exposed to them, for not one of the apostles made a direct renunciation. And from death, from the terrible lot of Judas, the prayer of Christ saved him, and his faltering faith did not completely abandon him. And saved from destruction and raised from the depths of the fall by the prayer of Christ, Peter, wise by the trial, is called upon to turn and strengthen his brothers. If we interpret this text in the light of the conversation on the way to Caesarea 11 in its entirety, then it must be brought into connection with the then temptation of Peter (“you are my Satan”). Peter, who at first could not stand on the rock of faith, moves from it and is now saved only by the special prayerful help of the Teacher. Taught by this test in humility and firmness, he is called upon to strengthen his brothers. The first in anticipation, but also the first in the fall, he must also be the first in faith. The personal is inseparably intertwined with the apostolic. Seeing here a new confirmation of “primacy” is only possible if it has already been established earlier, somewhere else; Outside of this condition, giving such meaning to the text is a matter of exegetical arbitrariness. However, the primacy of Peter, understood in the sense of some of his special and exclusive role in the apostolate, is undoubtedly affirmed here: in spite of his fall and in spite of it, as if even because of it, he is given the help of Christ by word and example to affirm “thy brothers - τοὺς άδελφούς σου” - however, brothers, but not flocks and not inferior or subordinate. Neither iurisdictio, nor even infallibilitas are contained here, unless they are already given earlier, in another place. What remains is the third and last of the texts establishing “primacy,” Io. 21, 15–17: “While they were dining, Jesus said to Simon Peter: Simon is Jonah!” (We have already noted above the shade that is introduced by this three-fold appeal to Simon Peter: Simon is no longer Peter - he has wavered in his Petrine faith and must be returned to him again). “Do you love Me - άγαπᾶς με more than they?” In the question itself one cannot help but see a quiet reproach to the self-confident Peter, who so recently assured in the presence of everyone: “even if everyone is offended because of You, I will never be offended” (Matthew 26, 33 - Mark 14, 29 - John 13, 37). But the Lord spares his disciple, and this is no longer repeated in further questions. “(Peter) says to Him: Yes, Lord! You know that I love You” φιλῶ σε, not only do I love You with the attraction of my heart, but I have You as a friend - φιλῶ, more than ἁγαπῶ, which is why Peter insistently repeats in all three answers: φιλῶ σε. Meanwhile, the Savior for the second time, as if not hearing Petrovsky’s φιλῶ, asks him again: ἀγαπάς με, and only for the third and last time does He deign to ask the student: διλεῖς με, that is, asks him in exactly the tone that the student wanted. - (Jesus) says to him: Feed My sheep βὸσκε τὰ ἀρνία. μου. Another time he says to him: Simon the Jonah! do you love me? (Peter) said to Him: Yes, Lord! You know that I love You. Jesus says to him: feed my sheep - ποίμανε τὰ προβάτια. μου. He says to him for the third time: Simon the Jonah! do you love me? Peter was saddened that he asked Him for the third time, “Do you love Me?” With this sadness of Peter, the evangelist testifies that Peter also perceived this conversation painfully as a painful memory and, as it were, a public confession, just as the sin of renunciation was publicly committed. “Jesus says to him: Feed My sheep - βόσκε τὰ προβάτια μου. (Nota bene: pass in the first and third case βόσκε, once in conjunction with ἁρνία, the other with προβάτια, and the second time ποἰμαινε with προβάτια). That this conversation has a direct and immediate relation to the fall of Peter and his restoration, there seems to be no dispute about this: this is too clearly emphasized by the threefold nature of the question, corresponding to the threefold renunciation, and by Peter’s “sorrow.” What a gap in the history of ap. Peter would have succeeded if there had not been this reconciliation and its restoration! Naturally, the later evangelist, who obviously supplemented the synoptic gospels already in circulation, stopped at this point with such care. But the purpose of the story clearly extends beyond just forgiveness and restoration in friendship with Christ, to which He called in the farewell conversation: “you are my friends” (John 15:14), we are also talking about the restoration of Peter to his apostolic dignity and rights, and this restoration is expressed in a figurative form: shepherd - feed, govern, βόσκε - ποίμαινε - lambs (sheep), My sheep. Usually in Catholic literature, ἄρνια refers to the laity, and προβάτια, pastors, i.e., bishops. Consistency would require that we include here the apostles, starting with John, as entrusted with the management of primacy. However, such an assumption clearly does not correspond to the setting of the story, where these imaginary sheep were also present, as diners and together witnesses of the reconciliation of Christ with His apostle. In general, this interpretation of sheep as bishops seems to us to be a completely arbitrary invention based on prejudice. Undoubtedly, Peter is restored to all that he had, but he does not gain anything new that he did not have. Therefore, the primacy of the Apostle Peter is restored in the sense and to the full extent in which he existed. A restitutio in integrum is accomplished, which in itself does not contain instructions regarding this integral state. And the texts of Io. 21, 15–17, as well as Lk. 22, 33–34, receive their meaning only depending on Matt. 16, 18–22 and in its light. So, a comparison of New Testament texts convinces us that Peter the Apostle actually had a special, first place among the twelve, but this was not the primacy of power, but of authority, seniority, primacy, which, moreover, belonged to him only in conjunction with everyone, but not without everyone and not broken by everyone. Peter was truly the chief apostle by the election and purpose of Christ, and this seniority of his cannot be denied. However, it must be limited, and, above all, in a personal sense. Peter has primacy among the twelve, as their head and representative, called and proclaimed by Christ, who singled out Peter in deed and word and confirmed his Petrine status. However, besides the twelve, there was also a thirteenth apostle, who was not on the way to Caesarea Philippi and did not dine with Christ and the disciples by the Sea of ​​Tiberias, and, therefore, did not hear the threefold “passion”. He was chosen and made an apostle by Christ himself, so to speak, outside the knowledge of Peter and any relation to him, and he asserted this election with special zeal and strength. “Paul was an apostle (chosen) not by men or through man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father” (Gal. 1:1), “a servant of Jesus Christ, called an apostle, chosen for the gospel of Christ” (Rom. 1:1), “received the Gospel and learned it, not from man, but through the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal. 1:11–12). And “when God, who chose me from my mother’s womb and called me by His grace, was pleased to reveal His Son in me, so that I would preach His gospel to the pagans: I did not then consult with flesh and blood and did not go to Jerusalem to the apostles who preceded me (Gal. 1: 16-17), and only three years later I went to Jerusalem “to see Peter” and then, 14 years later “by revelation" went to Jerusalem to see the apostles, to receive recognition that he was "entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, as Peter was to the circumcised," from James, Cephas and John, "honored as pillars." (Gal. 2:7–10). Wed. 1 Cor. 9, 1 word; 2 Cor. 11.5 lines–12, 1–14. It is undeniable that the Apostle Paul, although he worked not without contact and agreement with the twelve, is a self-legal phenomenon, asserting some kind of autonomy from “Peter and others like him.” “Am I not an apostle? Am I not free? Have I not seen Jesus Christ our Lord? (1 Cor. 9:1). In Paul there lives a bright, and one might say, militant consciousness of his apostolic self-legitimacy and freedom, just as all his activities actually proceed completely independently from the other apostles. “For I lack nothing against the chief apostles.” (2 Cor. 12:12). It would be strange and incorrect to assert that Paul was somehow bound by the primacy of Peter, while he himself recognizes himself as not being bound by anyone. Paul is, as it were, extraterritorial for Peter and the twelve: Paul on one side, the apostles on the other. The new “founder of Christianity” does his great work, obeying directly the inspirations from above and the dictates of his apostolic conscience. Along with the twelve, he is not the thirteenth, but the only one, alone, and Peter does not represent him, and he is inaccessible to his primacy. Paul's gospel is the limit of Peter's primacy. And Providence wished that both would turn out to be the leaders of the Roman Church, 12 where they suffered martyrdom. Thus, the primacy of Peter in the place of its direct and greatest manifestation turned out to be in fact not unconditional, for it had a border in Paul. The joint celebration of the memory of the saints and supreme apostles Peter and Paul, established since ancient times, and therefore common to the Eastern and Western Churches, has the same significance. The church prepares believers to honor this Roman primate through a common fast. To make from the memory of Peter and Paul the triumph of the primacy of one ap. Peter (as would be natural to expect) turns out to be impossible, according to the meaning of this celebration, as it is interpreted in the corresponding services (29th and 30th June). Here the “supremacy” of Peter is most decisively established, but at the same time the “supremacy” of Paul is established, moreover, in such a way that both of these primaries do not contradict each other, but are combined and mutually complemented. 13 The attitude of the apostles Peter and Paul seems, however, to be completely specific; it is established from their significance in the preaching of Christianity, in the apostolic feat. But they are completely incomparable in their personal relationship to Jesus Christ, therefore, in their position among the twelve for the simple reason that Paul was not one of the twelve at all, he did not know the Lord on earth, he was not present at Peter’s confession and the Lord’s answering words, he did not participate in that meal at which Peter was asked three times: do you love Me, and the answer was said three times: feed. In a certain sense, Paul is not a co-apostle with Peter and the twelve, who were called to be precisely “witnesses” (Luke 24:48; D.A. 1:8) of Christ and therefore could say with John the Apostle: “what happened from the beginning, what we heard, what we saw with our eyes, what we looked at and touched with our hands... what we saw and heard we declare to you” (John. 1, 1–3). Therefore, in a certain sense, Paul is not related to Peter, and, being together with him the “chief apostle” of the Church, he is not, however, the chief apostle among the twelve, which Peter undeniably, by the election of the Lord, is. But among the twelve there is also a second chief apostle, next to Peter. That is John Zebedee, Boanerges, the son of thunder. And we have thunderous testimony about his chief apostleship in the New Testament: in the Gospel of John, as well as in his epistles and the Apocalypse. It is known that the Gospel of John for historical “criticism”, which is an insoluble riddle (for there is no one known to history to attribute this creation), is attributed by unshakable church tradition to John the Theologian. It is also known that in language, in plan, and in content it differs from the other three, “synoptic” Gospels, and deliberately offers 14 and complements them. Being the most recent in origin (at the end of the 1st century), it also implies a corresponding historical situation: the absence of living eyewitnesses of the Savior’s life, except the Evangelist himself (“and he who has seen bears witness, and truly is his testimony,” John 19, 35. 21, 24), the martyrdom of the Apostle Peter (John 21, 18–19), church-historical perplexities of the post-apostolic century: a fierce struggle against gnosis. The author of the Gospel of John (John 19, 26, 35. 21,24) personally remains in the shadows and emerges from it only insofar as this is caused by the necessity of narration, when reporting what he was or now remains the only eyewitness and what no one else can report. Then he usually appears under the designation dear to his heart: “disciple, whom Jesus loves” (John 13, 23. 19, 26. 20, 2. 21, 7, 20) or simply “another disciple” (1, 40. 18, 15. 20, 2, 4, 8). It is noted that in the Gospel of John the name of John himself does not appear even once (in the Gospel of Matthew it appears 3 times, Mr. - 10 times, Luke - 7). Even “the sons of Zebedee, James and John,” common among the weather forecasters (Matthew - 3 times, Mark - 10, Luke - 5) is found only once (and then abbreviated, without names: οἱ τοῦ Ζευεδέου 21, 2). 15 Among the weather forecasters, the Apostle John occupies a fairly prominent place. He is called by the Lord together with his brother Jacob (who, as the eldest, is usually named in front: Matt. 4:21; Mark 1:89; Luke 5:10). Among the women accompanying Jesus was the mother of John, who stood at the cross (Matthew 27, 55–56. Mark 15, 40–41), and the Evangelist John himself designates her as “the sister of His Mother” (19, 25), which implies that he himself was related in the flesh to the Lord. The Lord gave John, together with his brother James, the name (ὄνομα) - Boanerges, i.e. “son of thunder,” just as he gave Peter the name (ὄνομα) Peter (Mark 3:16-17). Only these apostles received such a distinction. The meaning of the name given to John is most fully revealed from the Apocalypse, where he is the hearer and messenger of heavenly thunders; The meaning of the renaming in relation to his brother remains unknown. To see in this name only a hint of the incident in Samaria (Luke 9:54-56), that is, prophetic irony, of course, is unworthy of the words of the Savior. John and his brother were fishermen and had a common cause with Peter (Luke 5:10; cf. Mark 1:19). Called by Christ among the twelve, he once again returned to his occupation, but after a miraculous fishing trip he finally left everything and followed Christ (Matthew 4:21; Mark 1:19; Luke 5:1.11). Having become an apostle, John became one of the closest disciples of Christ, precisely one of those three, Peter, James, John, who were at the resurrection of the daughter of Jairus (Luke 8:51), and on the Mount of Transfiguration (Matthew 17, et seq. Mr. 9:2) and on the Mount of Olives during the conversation about the end of the world (Mr. 13:3), and, together with Peter, he prepares the upper room for the Last Supper (Luke 22:8), is present at the Gethsemane battle (Matthew 26:37, Mark 14:33). In a word, John, according to the weather forecasters, is one of the prominent apostles close to Christ, but that’s all. Among his individual traits, his jealous ardor stands out, with which he rebukes a person who casts out demons in the name of Christ, but does not follow Him, but receives a reprimand from the Teacher for his zeal (Mr. 9, 38–40); another time, together with his brother, he expresses his readiness to bring down fire from heaven on the hostile Samaritans, and also meets the objection of the Teacher (Luke 9:54). This jealousy in him is a still unenlightened manifestation of the fiery love inherent in his nature. One day, he too becomes a victim of the Jewish messianic temptation, together with his brother and mother, in connection with conversations that arose among the disciples about primacy in this messianic kingdom, in response to which they receive due admonition from the Teacher: Matt. 20, 20 pp. Mr. 10, 35 ff., while they cause the indignation of other students. Paying tribute to his environment and time, the Son of Thunder, however, is alien to the weakness of will and instability of character that turns out to be inherent in Cephas, at least there is no direct information about this. In general, however, it must be said that on the basis of the Synoptics there can be no question of comparing Peter and John with regard to primacy among the apostles; here it clearly and indisputably belongs to Peter alone. Now, turning to the Gospel of John, we must note that as far as its general purpose is a replenishment of the weather forecasters, it, at the same time, coming from one of the closest apostles, is a story about this very apostle. He himself, as a witness and accomplice, is inevitably the subject of the narrative; the Gospel of John is also the Gospel about John. And, indeed, it gives a different image of him, of course, not contradicting the synoptic one, however, introducing completely new features into it. Anticipating the results of the analysis, we must point out in advance that it gives the image of John as the first among the apostles, or chief apostle, along with Peter, and this must finally be seen with all clarity. And this is not a deliberately suggested and imposed idea (“Tendenz”), but an involuntary conclusion that naturally follows from the content of the Gospel of John. We can mentally reproduce some of those unanswered and perplexed questions that arose during the writing of the Gospel of John, but were not answered by the weather forecasters in connection with the events that took place. And the most basic fact of the era is that John was the only one left on earth of all the apostles of Christ. The Dormition of the Mother of God took place, and Peter, the first among the apostles, glorified God with his death. How should the attitude of the Apostle John towards his successors be understood? And especially in connection with the mysterious rumors that the Son of Thunders would not taste death, especially after it turned out to have no power over him in that very Rome where both supreme apostles died as martyrdom 16. If in relation to the theological content the Gospel of John is a denunciation of docetism and an answer to questions related to it, then in matters of internal church life it contains a further development of the doctrine of apostolic primacy, in particular in relation to John. In this sense, we must understand both what is said and not said and how it is said and not said in the Gospel of John. And, above all, this marvelous, like the multi-colored depth of the blue of heaven, unsearchable, prologue to John’s Gospel! Isn’t this divinely inspired soaring of the sharp-eyed eagle, the secret man and friend of Christ, not, at the same time, the confession of the Chief Apostle, which directly requires comparison with the confession of Peter - “in the beginning was the Word” with “Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God,” as the revelation of the mysteries of God, the trinity of the Holy One. Trinity? 17 And the entire content of the Gospel of John, who kept the speeches of Christ for Christianity, His teaching about Himself and about the Father and about the Comforter Spirit, the farewell conversation with its promises and the high priestly prayer of Christ - how impoverished the world and our weak consciousness would be if we were deprived of this paradise of the miracles and mysteries of God! How exalted by God is that disciple who is entrusted with receiving and delivering these sacred verbs to the world! Already as an Evangelist-Theologian, the Apostle John is the Chief Apostle, the chosen and beloved disciple of Christ, who accepted the divine words of the Teacher into his heart, along with the command to preserve them for the world. But at the same time, at every step, the exceptional closeness and chosenness of this disciple is revealed, who, as a true “son” of the Mother of humility, does not call himself by name, but at the same time cannot and does not want to consign to oblivion that he was clearly and undoubtedly awarded the special love of the Lord: he is the one “who loved Jesus” (and in a more solemn case, the most dear and joyful memory: “the disciple, who loved Jesus, who reclined on supper on His chest and said: Lord, who betrayeth Thee,” Jn. 21:20). And the presence of this beloved, but not calling himself an apostle, and his closeness to the Lord is felt even where he is not spoken of at all. In fact, pay attention: chapter 3 tells a conversation with Nicodemus, who came to Christ secretly at night and talked with Him alone, and the secrets of the Kingdom of God were told to him: about the new birth from the Spirit, and about the image of this birth, and about how God loved the world, not sparing His Son to save it, and about judgment, and about salvation. How does the evangelist know about what happened during this night meeting? He can know about this only from his Divine Friend Himself, who told the secret to his beloved. Conversation with the Samaritan Woman: the disciples went into the city, and the Lord at Jacob’s well under the vault of heaven conducts His conversation with this woman, to whom he is revealed as the Messiah (John 4:25-6), long before Caesarea Philippi. From whom does the Evangelist know about this, if again not from the Divine Friend, who did not hide this conversation from his beloved disciple? (And therefore, among the disciples on the way to Caesarea Philippi there could have been at least one who knew that it was necessary to answer the Teacher’s question, and, however, remained silent - another, albeit indirect confirmation that Peter answered on behalf of everyone, expressing not only his personal, but also the common apostolic faith). And the case of the woman caught in adultery: after all, the Lord told her His sentence when there was no one left around her (John 8:10), how does the Evangelist know about this, if not from Christ Himself? And how did he know the content of Christ’s conversation with the healed man born blind, to whom it was again revealed about Christ as the Son of God (i.e. the essence of the Caesarea Confession of Peter), if not from Christ Himself? 18 But was anyone present during Christ’s conversation with Martha, who went to meet Him, to whom the sweet words were spoken: “I am the resurrection and the life,” and in response she pronounced Peter’s confession (“You are the Christ, the Son of God, coming into the world”) (John 11:20-27)? And here again the assumption arises that this was revealed to John by the Lord. In general, a comparison of the contents of John’s Gospel with the synoptic ones leads to the necessary conclusion that John, who enjoyed a special closeness to Christ, His love and trust, could know (John 3:23–4) and, indeed, knew from Him something that the other disciples did not know. By this closeness of relationship, it was not Peter, but it was he who was the chief apostle of Christ. This conclusion has hitherto been suggested to us only by indirect indications from the Gospel of John, which does not yet speak directly about either Peter or John. Now we must confirm it by analyzing those places where they are directly spoken of, and an answer is given to the question about the relationship between the two chief apostles, i.e., about the foundations of the hierarchical structure of the Church. And first of all, in the Gospels of John, what is striking is the fact that John is spoken of here only in two ways: either as a beloved disciple, chief apostle, or as a duo with Peter. It is not Peter and Andrew, nor James and John, who are the main duo of John’s Gospel, but Peter and John. And this is full of special meaning and significance. Let's look at the relevant texts in order: A) The calling of John and Peter. The first time the presence of John (directly unnamed) is noted in the story of the calling of the apostles, which, as is known, in John differs significantly from the weather forecasters: according to the latter, the calling takes place at sea, during the fishery, but here it is obviously preceded by the personal calling of individual disciples. True to his rule, John, assuming the story of the weather forecasters to be already known, fills it with intimate events that preceded the general calling, but were known to him, like many others. And it turns out that John and Andrew were the first to follow Christ, who then brought Peter (which gives the answer to the question about the duality: how and in what order were Peter and John called?). “The next day John (the Baptist) and two of his disciples stood again. And when he saw Jesus coming, he said, Behold the Lamb of God. Hearing these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus. Jesus turned and saw them coming and said to them, “What do you need?” They said to Him: Rabbi! (which means “teacher”!), where do you live? (μένεις – stay, have a stop, “address”)? He says to them: go and see. They went and saw where He lived. And they remained with Him that day. It was about ten o'clock (a characteristic technique for the evangelist to indicate his personal presence: without directly naming himself, he gives some feature that incriminates the eyewitness). One of the two who heard from John (about Jesus) and followed Him was Andrew, the brother of Simon Peter. He is the first to find his brother Simon and say to him: we have found the Messiah, which means “Christ.” And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon, the son of Jonah; You will be called Cephas, which means “stone” (Peter).” (John 1:36–42). In this story, attention is drawn, first of all, to the fact that the first to follow Jesus and call Him rabbi were John’s disciples, John and Andrew, who heard the word of their teacher about Him (John 1:26-36). At the same time, they spent the whole day with the Teacher, enjoying His words, and from that time for John his closeness to the Lord began. So, in following Christ, he is the first, along with the first-called Andrew. The latter, however, immediately brings “Simon-Peter,” that is, a well-known person, the same one about whom so much has been written in the previous Gospels, and the prophetic words to him (“looking at him”) inevitably make one remember the path to Caesarea Philippi and are clearly in a silent relationship with them. The hidden meaning of this story is this: yes, this is how Peter, the head of the apostles, was called, and was immediately predestined in his special service to Christ, however, even earlier, his future beloved disciple had already spent the day with the Teacher, together with Andrew. John was among the disciples of John the Baptist. And this disciple was told by the teacher, even before his personal conversion to Christ, the hidden secret of Christ: behold the lamb of God. “And having heard these words from him, both disciples followed Jesus” (John 1:37). The secret knowledge of the mystery of the sacrificial Lamb irresistibly drew Andrew and John to Him, and this was the beginning of the general apostolic election: the first-called Andrew and the chief apostle of love John. And this image of election - not calling - sheds special light on the closeness of the beloved disciple to the Lord: beloved disciple looked into the mystery of sacrificial service. And, in addition, a special mysterious connection is established between the Forerunner and the Apostle John in their common relationship to the Savior, and this connection also places the beloved disciple in a special position. On the contrary, Peter hears for the first time about Christ in this form from his brother Andrew: “we have found the Messiah, which means Christ” (John 1:41). This already contains, as it were, a preliminary to Petrov’s confession on the way to Caesarea, but at the same time, traditional Jewish eschatology, with which the Teacher had to struggle so much in His disciples, still remains in force, and the expression “Messiah” represents much greater ambiguity and ambiguity than the reverent word of the Forerunner about the Lamb of God. The apostles are slowly and difficultly trained to incorporate new content about the Lamb of God into the idea of ​​the Jewish Messiah, but where they end, the beloved disciple begins. And one more feature: it is told about all those of the apostles who came to Christ these days - about Peter, Philip, Nathanael - and about the words of the Teacher with them or about them, but nothing is told about what was said “on that day” to the very participant in this conversation - the initiatory conversation of the future mystic remains a secret. However, this silence is no less expressive in its own way than those heart-piercing words that the other apostles heard from Him those days. So the mystical seer of God Moses (with whom the Church compares John in her songs) did not tell anyone about what he learned in the terrible and mysterious forty days and nights on Sinai in fire and darkness. B) At the Last Supper. For two-thirds of the Gospel, the evangelist himself remains in the shadows, emerging from it only where, as an eyewitness, he is called upon to convey new details of the last days and hours of the Savior, starting with the story of the Last Supper, and here too he appears in conjunction with Peter. It is noteworthy, however, that this duo (only once) already appears in the synoptic narrative of the Last Supper in the Gospel of Luke: it is the Lord who sends Peter and John to prepare Easter and gives them the appropriate instructions (Luke 22:8-13), which they do. It is impossible not to pay reverent attention to this detail about the Last Supper: the Bridegroom chooses for himself two architriclins, the leaders of the feast, to whom he entrusts its organization, as if prophetically indicating that in future times the Last Supper will take place only within the limits where the region of the chief apostolic duo extends. The Lord told His disciples about the impending betrayal of Him by one of the disciples. “Then the disciples looked around at each other, wondering who He was talking about. One of His disciples, whom Jesus loved, was reclining at Jesus’ breast. Simon Peter made a sign to him to ask who it was that he was talking about. He fell to the chest of Jesus and said to Him: Lord, who is this? Jesus answered: the one to whom I dip a piece of bread and give it. And having dipped a piece, he gave it to Judas Simon Iscariot” (John 13:22-26). This ever-memorable story, to which the soul listens with trepidation and confusion, speaks not only about the sorrowful son of perdition, betraying the Teacher, and not only about the entire host of apostles helplessly “looking around,” but also about the chief apostolic duo. Peter cannot overcome his bewilderment and contain his impatience. It is not enough to see in this only his unchanging and unrestrained ardor, but also the consciousness of his chief apostleship and seniority. This is not a matter of simple curiosity, but of a most important act concerning the entire apostolic order, which is significant for the self-awareness and self-determination of the entire Twelver. And Peter asks here not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of everyone. Shouldn’t he, the chief of the apostles, know about the traitor apostle, after he was entrusted with the keys and the power of the keys, given the primacy certified by the Lord Himself? And yet, he feels his powerlessness and the limitations or relativity of this “primacy” of his. He cannot and does not dare ask his Teacher himself. But another can and dares to do this, the one who reclines on the chest of Jesus, “his beloved Jesus”: there is no apostle closer to him, and only he can ask Jesus about what one cannot help but know, what Elder Peter and the entire apostleship need to know. And the primacy of authority bows before the primacy of love: “to him Simon Peter (namely “Simon Peter,” i.e., in full possession of his “Petrineness”) made a sign,” and he immediately received an answer. One cannot see in this story only an interesting detail from the history of the Last Supper, which has no further significance in determining the significance of the apostles in the destinies of the church, and the fact that at the most critical moment in the history of the apostolate, only John had primacy - the primacy of love and personal friendship for the Lord - cannot remain without consequences. And least of all can those who so carefully seek out all the features of the Gospel narrative that are favorable or unfavorable to their idea of ​​apostolic primacy can ignore this fact. In our opinion, this text raises in all its force and sharpness the question of the relationship between the two primates of the two chief apostles - the primacy of love and the primacy of authority. And this is all the more so since in the Gospel story itself one cannot help but feel a silent indication of the same question. Could the evangelist, having before him the narratives of the weather forecasters and, in particular, the story of the solemn elevation of Simon to Peter, not feel that with his story he was introducing something new, limiting or complicating this already accomplished initiation of Simon into Peter? (Interestingly, in the same chapter 13, Peter, either on his own behalf, or rather, again on behalf of the disciples, during the Last Supper asks the Lord: “Where are you going?” and receives from Him a prophetic answer: (John 13, 36-38) “Simon Peter said to Him: Lord, where are you going? Jesus answered him: Where am I going, you cannot go now, but after that you will follow Me. Peter said to Him: Lord, why can I not follow You now? I will lay down my life for You. Jesus answered him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the rooster will not crow until you have denied Me three times.” C) At the courtyard of the high priest Anna. Here again we are dealing with the duo of John's Gospel, Peter and John. “And they took Him first to Annas... Simon Peter and another disciple followed Jesus; This disciple was introduced to the high priest and entered with Jesus into the courtyard of the high priest. And Peter stood outside, behind the doors. Then another disciple, who was known to the high priest, came out and told the doorkeeper, and brought Peter in (18, 15-16. What follows is the story of Peter’s denial). When Jesus was taken, “all the disciples left Him and fled” (Mark 14:50), except for two: Peter and John, which duo appears in the corresponding place in John’s Gospel. Here is not only a detail known only to the participant and eyewitness 19 and explaining how Peter could enter the bishop’s courtyard (thanks to the assistance of John, personally known to the high priest), but at the same time, a prologue to the epilogue of the Gospel of John and the beginning of the story about the same two during the passion of Christ. So, only two students entered. It is not clear from anything that John’s personal acquaintance with the high priest created for him any special immunity as a disciple of Christ; it only gave him the opportunity to freely enter the courtyard and bring his co-apostle with him. In the future, such fame could only have a threatening significance, because regarding John it was not even necessary to establish his identity, as the bishop’s servants decided to do regarding Peter. Everyone knew John personally, and, of course, as a disciple of Christ, and therefore his position was threatening from the very first moment, as soon as he entered. On the contrary, Peter at first intended to remain incognito, and therefore fell into such embarrassment when, by chance and so far harmlessly, the question of establishing his identity arose among the servants. In the Gospel story (all four evangelists) there is no indication that this identification of Peter would immediately threaten Peter with any immediate consequences (it is generally worthy of attention that at this time none of the followers of Christ, both in hiding and not in hiding, suffered, and this is obviously still and it was not part of the plans of the Sanhedrin. 20 The Lord predicted to Peter that he would soon (that is, before the end of the night, before the roosters crowed three times, or twice) three times, as a result of some fatal fear that he could not control, on the contrary, John, obviously free from fear, is present at the trial of the Lord, following Him from one place to another (cf. the characteristic details of the eyewitness: “from. Caiaphas led Jesus into the praetorium. It was morning,” Io. 18, 28, details of the story about Pilate’s trial, absent from the weather forecasters, such as: “what is truth?”, “Behold the man,” “then it was Friday and the third hour,” etc.) right up to Golgotha. Undoubtedly, being at the place of execution, among enraged Jews and cruel warriors, was extremely dangerous for the relatives and followers of the executed person, and it is not without reason that, apart from several devoted and selfless women - and among them two mothers: the Mother of the Lord and the mother of John himself (“his Mother’s sister”), of the disciples at the cross there was only one John. So, the two disciples who entered the courtyard of the high priest were torn apart: one “went out weeping bitterly,” the other followed the Teacher to Golgotha. And, nevertheless, the theme of the story of the Gospel of John remains about the duo: about the two chief apostles in the hours of Christ’s suffering. D) At the Cross. “Jesus, seeing His Mother and the disciple standing there, whom He loved, said to His Mother: Woman, behold Your son. Then he says to the disciple: Behold your Mother! And from that hour the disciple took Her to himself (εἱς τὰ ἴδια - home) (John 19:26-27). Before talking about the content of the text, let's clear up some possible misunderstandings. There are hardly any who will consider this text solely as a personal appeal, a testamentary disposition of the dying person regarding his personal affairs. Apart from general considerations, the text itself speaks sufficiently against this possibility. Several devoted women stood with Mary at the cross, including Mother John, so there was someone to take care of the shelter for Our Lady of Sorrows if it was needed, although there is no indication of this. In fact, how did Mary’s external, if one may put it this way, change after the death of her Son? Did He, always passing through towns and villages preaching the Kingdom of God and not having anywhere to lay His head, lived together with His Mother, on one, so to speak, household? We know that this did not happen: human love for the Mother, as well as Mother’s love for the Son, were sacrificed to the service of God, as is quite clearly seen from one incident told by all the weather forecasters (Matthew 22:46–50, Mark 3:31–5, Luke 8:19–21): about how His Mother and brothers came to see Him, and He answered: “here My Mother and My Brothers,” making it clear that His personal feelings were sacrificed by Him to His service. You should also pay attention to that address to the Mother: Zheno - γύναι. This appeal 21 begs comparison with the one that took place before the miracle in Cana of Galilee: “Jesus said to her, what is there for me and for you, woman? My hour has not come” (John 2:4), and the Mother fully understood this answer, for, regardless of its form, she told the servants: “Whatever He tells you, do it.” This solemn wife’s response to the “Mother,” testifying to the special significance of what is happening, is said before the miracle that transforms St. The Eucharist, which was also the “beginning of miracles” with which He “revealed His glory.” And now, before it is accomplished, just before the offering of the world propitiatory Sacrifice, this woman is repeated: we are not talking about the personal Mother of Jesus, but also about the mother of the whole new Adam, about the new Eve, about the Mother of the entire human race. This is the Woman about whom it was said to the serpent in paradise: “I will put enmity between you and the Woman, between your seed and Her seed” (Gen. 3:15). In a word, the wife is an appeal not to the “mother of Jesus”, but to the Mother of God. Here it is necessary to make that historical commentary on this text, which follows from the time of writing the Gospel of John precisely after the Dormition of the Mother of God and her glorious ascension from earth to heaven. If at the time of the Synoptics there could still be some confusion in the veneration of the “mother of Jesus” as the Mother of God, then after the apostles miraculously appeared as witnesses of her glorification, no hesitation was possible, and for the apostles the dogma of the Mother of God was already revealed. And when John speaks about the “Mother of Jesus,” about this wondrous Woman, he speaks about the Lady Theotokos, the Queen of heaven and earth. And therefore, the direct and only possible meaning of these words from the Cross, that is, spoken at a moment of greatest tension in the life of the whole world, in an atmosphere filled with exceptional solemnity and immeasurable significance (“and when I am lifted up on the cross, I will draw everyone to Me” Io. 12:32), from the Cross the Lord adopts his beloved disciple to the Queen of Heaven, and in his person he adopts to Her the entire apostolic face and the entire human race, and adopts the sons of men to Her. If it were appropriate somewhere and someday to apply the ill-fated invention of Roman medieval theology, which still clouds the consciousness of the sons of the Western Church 22 - the idea of ​​​​the Vice-Christ, vicarius Christi, then it would most likely suggest itself here, rather than where it is usually applied now. But let it not be! The Apostle Peter may have a vicar, as a successor and deputy, like the entire apostolate (and, indeed, it has them in the episcopate), but not the One who called and sent the apostles, without at all making them His vicars through this. And now He entrusted not a vicar, not a vice-son to His Mother, but in the person of John the entire apostleship and all humanity was churched, He adopted His Mother as sons, purchasing this adoption with His blood, making His brethren after the Mother, the sons of men, sons of God, children of the Heavenly Father. Here is the mystery of redemption. From here, from this point, the rays of theology diverge in radii. And the word of the Word could not fail to be fulfilled: from that hour the disciple sang in his own way. A certain mysterious and great election of the beloved disciple was realized; and his solemn dedication to the chief apostle of Christ, the guardian of the Ever-Virgin. It took place in the presence of a few devoted women who remained faithful to the end. And the secret of this dedication remained unknown to the world (it is not even among the weather forecasters). It could only be announced by the initiate himself, the Evangelist John, when the time came, that is, when the whole meaning of what happened was revealed, after the Dormition of the Mother of God and her glorification. The evangelist also named the witnesses to this event, although at that time, of course, they were no longer alive. According to unanimous church tradition, alone among all the apostles, John was a virgin, who was entrusted with guarding the Ever-Virgin, as touchingly depicted in the church songs dedicated to him. 23 What was Mary for the apostolic church? We find almost no indications about this in D. Apostle: in Her immeasurable humility She remains even in a deeper shadow than in the Gospels. It is not said that the Risen One appeared to Her first, just as it is not said that She was on the Mount of Ascension. Her name is mentioned only among those who unanimously stayed in the upper room of Zion after the Ascension (D. Ap. 1, 14). Nothing is said about her glorious Assumption, about the miraculous arrival of St. the apostles to the funeral bed (and among them the church hymn especially highlights Apostle Peter 24 with James and John). This lack of written information is usually disconcerting, especially in the face of the fact that the veneration of the Mother of God is equally essential and inalienable for the entire church world (both in its eastern and western halves). However, these temptations of little faith are powerless for believers and those who honor the Mother of God, and on the basis of the experienced knowledge that we have about Her now, the significance that She had for the Apostolic Church also becomes immutable. She, and not any of the apostles, not Peter or John, was the living heart of the Church, its focus, and, at the same time, the highest and immutable authority. The personal authority of the Mother of God among the apostles was beyond any comparison, and after her Dormition it, of course, became even more obvious, just as it is obvious that the Mother of God, who is in heaven, is the already realized goal of the universe, the glorified creation, the crowned Church. And the Apostle John, her named son, thereby receives primacy among the apostles. Therefore, if we can talk about establishing the primacy of Petrov after his confession, then with the same reason we can talk about establishing the primacy of John among the other apostles at Golgotha. The event at the Cross with John has a complete analogy with the event on the way to Caesarea Philippi with Peter, in other words, two primaries were established by Christ himself: Petrovo and John. The task of theology is to understand to the end and draw all the conclusions from this fact; here it is only necessary to establish the fact itself. The only one of the apostles who stood at the cross also appeared as a witness to the accomplished world Eucharist, with his own ears he heard: having been accomplished (John 19:30), he alone of all told the world about this, as a “witness,” to which the apostles are called to be witnesses of Christ. And in this, as an eyewitness and witness of Golgotha, he is also the chief apostle. In particular, he is a witness to the mysterious flow of blood and water from a perforated rib, which, according to ancient legend, were collected by Joseph of Arimathea in a cup (from which Western legends about the Holy Grail come). And what he saw is deliberately confirmed as his apostolic testimony: “One of the warriors pierced his rib with a copy, and he came out with blood and water. And he who has seen bears witness, and his testimony is true” (John 19:34-35). (These words are always pronounced in proskomedia when the Holy Union is poured into the chalice). F) Procession to the tomb. The terrible hours of Calvary passed, which left John alone at the cross. The apostles unite again, and the very first mention of John again unites him with Peter, the theme of the duo of Peter and John returns. It is their procession to the tomb that is described. The story about this is absent from other evangelists (cf. Luke 24:12). Mary Magdalene runs and comes to Simon Peter and the other disciple whom Jesus loved. (It is remarkable that he loved here ἐφίλει, instead of the former ἠγάπα. The first, as we know from the story of Peter’s threefold questioning, indicates greater personal friendship than the second, and here, after the fidelity shown at the cross, John, as it were, is deliberately awarded the title of friend of Jesus). “And he said to them: They have taken the Lord away from the tomb, and we do not know where they laid Him. Peter and the other disciple immediately came out and went to the tomb. They both ran together; but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and came to the tomb first. And, bending down, he saw the linens lying; but did not enter (the tomb). Simon Peter comes after him and enters the tomb, and sees only the linens lying, and the cloth... Then the other disciple, who had come to the tomb first, also entered, and saw and believed. They, after all, did not yet know from Scripture that He had to rise from the dead. So, the disciples returned to themselves again.” (John 20:2-10). So, the duo Peter and John, after Magdalene’s message, go to the tomb, and it is noted twice as a circumstance that is obviously not indifferent (and, at the same time, known only to an eyewitness) that John came first, for he “ran faster” than Peter, but for some reason did not enter. Peter, now freed from his fear, shows his usual impulsiveness and enters the tomb first, and only after him John. But what’s amazing is that only John believed. Even the primacy in the affirmation of faith, which was revealed to Peter and given him the promise of the “stone,” here passes to John. 25 In this we must see a new feature in the legend about the chief apostles, contradicting or at least limiting the primacy of Peter. The apostles, in front of the empty tomb, in which, however, the shrouds and the sir remained, were subjected to a new test of faith, and if ever, then now, it would seem natural to expect a solemn confession of faith in the Risen One. And, however, confession did not follow, just as faith itself did not follow (“for they did not yet know from Scripture that He had to rise”), the confusion that was evoked by the whole situation around the tomb (remember that even Magdalene said to the unknown Gardener: “if you took Him, tell me where you laid Him”) remained unresolved. And the beloved disciple, the only one who believed, obviously kept his faith in his heart, as was typical of his contemplative, more self-contained nature. G) Fishing. (Epilogue to the Gospel of John). This epilogue is entirely devoted to the theme of the duo of Peter and John. It consists of two parts: a description of fishing and the conversation of the Lord with Peter. In the description of fishing we observe the same subtle silent parallel between the two students. When Jesus appeared on the shore in the morning and a miraculous catch was discovered, “then the disciple whom Jesus loved said to Peter: This is the Lord. Simon Peter, hearing that it was the Lord, girded himself with his robe and threw himself into the sea” (John 7). So, John recognizes the Lord and informs Peter about this, and for the latter, John’s testimony is so undeniable (it is said directly and without any reservations: having heard that it is the Lord), that he, true to his temperament, rushes into the sea to meet the Lord. The clairvoyance of love and faith, the advantage of knowledge here remains with John, who, however, remains associated with Peter in some mysterious union. And this duality receives a new, moreover, solemn and final revelation in the conversation during dinner, to which we will now move on. It is known that the “elder” John, who outlived all the apostles, including Peter himself, enjoyed absolutely exceptional authority in the entire Eastern Church. Could it have been different? Beloved disciple of Christ, son of Mary by divine adoption, martyr in Rome, who survived only miraculously, Patmos seer and Evangelist, he was, indeed, as if the vicar of Christ, whose authority, of course, could not be compared with the bishops of Rome. And moreover, there was a belief that he would not taste death until the second coming of Christ, according to His direct promise. This inevitably gave rise to a number of bewilderments among contemporaries, which were all focused on the same question of primacy among the apostles, that is, about the duality, about the relationship between Peter and John. During his lifetime, the Lord made Peter a prince of the apostles, handing him the keys, however, Peter is no longer there, but John remains and will remain until the end of his days. The doctrine that Peter continues his existence in his successors - the Roman bishops at that time is clearly still absent, but otherwise the question would arise even more acutely: could Peter's successors in the Roman see really be hierarchically higher than the most beloved disciple of Christ? 26 These questions are answered by the epilogue of the Gospel of John, which in the Gospel itself represents a kind of appendix (or post scriptum). As you know, the Gospel ends already on 20, 31, and then, as if with a special signature, - Io. 21, 24, an epilogue is added, the entire 21st chapter, containing a story about fishing. In relation to those who doubt Peter and those who are inclined to belittle his authority before John, this authority is firmly and decisively restored here in the already analyzed story of the threefold questioning: the embarrassing impression of Peter’s threefold denial, which remains in no way erased by the synoptic evangelists (and the oral tradition, which probably filled this gap, could have already faded), is here contrasted with the solemn restoration of Peter in chief apostleship. “Elder” John restores the authority of his co-apostle for all time. And even, moreover, he magnifies his martyrdom, testifying that it was precisely foretold by the Lord, as a sign of special election: “by which death he will glorify God” (John 21: 18–19). Perhaps here, too, it is meant to calm the bewilderment of other immoderate zealots who could be tempted by the death of the chief apostle, called to be the rock of the Church, seemingly for all time and, however, following the common destiny, while over Elder John the hand of the executioners themselves was powerless and he miraculously did not taste death. The tone of the narrative and the special emphasis on the fact that Peter’s death followed the direct permission of the Lord provide the basis for such an understanding. So, in its first part (John 21:15-19), this story is a completely definite apology for Peter’s authority, ending with his complete restoration to the chief apostleship: having said this, he says to him: “Follow me” (John 21:19). In these words, even more decisively and generally than in the threefold questioning (to which primary attention is usually paid), this restoration of it in the apostleship, and, therefore, the chief apostleship, is expressed. (which in Peter are inseparably fused with each other). However, this is immediately followed by part two, in which we are talking about the relationship between the two chief apostles Peter and John, or about the boundaries of the Petrova region. Here is the answer to the question that worries our minds: is the beloved disciple of Christ, the “elder” John, really subject to anyone, even Peter himself, and even more so to his successors - on the Roman, or Antioch, or Alexandrian see? Let us listen again to the words of the text itself: “Peter, turning, sees the disciple coming after him, whom Jesus loved, and who at the supper, leaning against His chest, said: Lord! who will betray you? When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus: Lord! what about him? (John 21:20–21). The underlined words in which this lengthy statement of the disciple's identity is contained are not mere length or pleonasm, generally speaking not unusual in the fourth evangelist, but they express the motive of this message itself, or the silent but persistent question here implied. In this case, the following paraphrase is appropriate: Lord! after all, this is the disciple whom You loved, who on that unforgettable night had a place next to You, “on Your Persians,” after all, he alone could dare, at the request of this very Peter, to ask You about the traitor, and now Peter asks about this very beloved disciple, either out of friendly curiosity, simply rejoicing at his forgiveness and restoration and immediately surrendering to his usual, not always able to observe the measure, expansiveness, and perhaps, relying on this, their eldership among the apostles, which needs to know everything concerning the apostles, in particular earlier regarding the Apostle Jude, and now even the beloved disciple: is this disciple subject to him, is this disciple subject to his “care”? Here is a question that is heard inaudibly, whispered - not in the text, but above the text of the story being analyzed, and the direct answer to this question is the further words of the Lord, and, moreover, the answer, it must be said directly and decisively, is negative. “Jesus says to him: If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? τί πρός σε; you follow Me. And this word spread among the brethren that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not tell him that he would not die, but: if I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you? (John 21:21–23). This direct reference to the word that had already passed between the brothers confirms the idea that the evangelist here answers the questions of the post-apostolic age, and this second, seemingly unnecessary and completely literal repetition of the answer given to Peter, means its special importance, peculiarly emphasizes its significance. What does this answer contain? It says: whatever the fate of John, Peter has nothing to do with it - John is not subject to Peter: what about you? It's enough for you to take care of yourself: walk for me. In the primacy of John, the border of Petrov’s primacy is: not one, but two primates, two chief apostles, or, rather, it is one primate, but twofold, complex. John reassures his Asia Minor flock of their fears. The Lord Himself fenced off his area, preventing even the Chief Apostle Peter from encroaching on it. (As proof to the contrary, let us assume that only these three words would be missing: what to you? What new point of support would the zealots of Petrov’s single primacy have received here for themselves, who would rightfully conclude that the prince of the apostles, his “universal care”, as episcopus universalis, clearly extends to his beloved disciple and in this finds the support of the Savior, for He answers him the question inspired by this paternal respect. However, this did not happen, and the question of either curiosity or “care” remained unanswered). However, in relation to the competence of Peter, the question was resolved by leaving it open regarding John, about whom, although it is not directly said that that disciple will not taste death, in any case it is not said that he will taste it. Moreover, this was written long after Peter glorified God by his martyrdom. And the divine words: that they have already been realized for you by the very fact - by the fact that John outlived Peter. Obviously, given this position of the question, what kind of talk can there be, so to speak, about the liquidation of John’s earthly work, or about his subordination to Peter’s successors? If there, in the west, it is affirmed that Peter himself lives and acts in his successors, the Roman bishops, then here, in the east, the beloved disciple has not yet died, and if the Lord wills, he will not die until the second coming, here John the Theologian himself resides. Does he live? This question, both for Peter and for the readers of the Gospel of John, remains as a kind of sacred secret about John and about his, John’s, church. At times, more than once in the history of the church, he returns with new strength and seems to be returning now in our troubled time, fraught with new creative possibilities. But hasn’t church history already answered this question sufficiently by including the death of John the Theologian in its annals? Didn’t the church, which celebrates the venerable repose of John the Theologian on September 26th, respond? Yes, history answered, but its answer only deepens the mystery. An ancient legend coming to us about the death of John the Theologian mysteriously says that when this death approached, he ordered a grave to be dug for himself and lay down there, with the words: accept me, damp earth! And then his body was not in it. And no less mysterious is the answer of the church, which, on the one hand, commemorates his death, but at the same time pleases this death with these words: “The apostles above, the trumpet of theology, the spiritual commander, who conquered the universe to God, come, faithful ones, let us bless John of ever-memorable, moving from the earth and not retreating from the earth, but living and waiting for the terrible second coming: ask us to gather the hedgehog without condemnation, beloved, mysterious, treasurer of Christ, who fulfills your memory with love.” (Stichera for Little Evenings on the State Proclamation, glory, samoglashen). We also need to pay attention to the duo of Peter and John, as far as we can see it after the Ascension of Christ and Pentecost. It is mentioned only in three cases in D.A., however, these cases are very important. The first case is the healing of a lame man, the first apostolic miracle after Pentecost. D.A. 31–4: “Peter and John walked together to the church at the ninth hour of prayer... (The lame man), seeing Peter and John before the entrance to the church, asked for alms. Peter, looking at him with John (σὺν τῶ Ἰωάνῃ) said: look at us.” It is remarkable that here they act and appear as a duo, but on behalf of the two Peter speaks, who directly performs the very miracle of healing, already pre-performed by the commanding gaze of the duo (3, 5-8), and the healed one himself attributes this miracle not to Peter who performed it directly, but to the duo: *) “and how the healed lame man did not leave Peter and John - κρατοῦντος δὲ αὐτοῦ τὸν Πέτρον καὶ τὸν Ιωάνην - then all the people ran to them in amazement πφὸς αὐτούς in the vestibule, called Solomon’s” (3:11), after which the apostle begins to preach, just as after Pentecost. Peter, thereby exercising his chief apostleship. However, the appearance of such an unusual pairing among the weather forecasters, and precisely as a pairing (can one talk about the coincidence of their being together at such an important and solemn moment in the history of the Apostolic Church?) deserves appropriate attention. The same should be said about the continuation of this story about the Chief Apostolic duo. Although only Peter spoke, both were responsible. The writer narrates this way: when they spoke to the people λαλοὺντων δὲ αὐτῶν (again in the plural), the priests and commanders of the church guards and the Sadducees approached them, annoyed at what they were teaching and preaching - διὰ τὸ διδάσκων αὐταύς - and laid hands on them (DA 4, 1–3 ff.). The next day, “putting them in the middle, they asked: by what force or by what name did you do this?” Peter answers again, “filled with the Holy Spirit,” on behalf of the duo (if we are asked to answer today - εἰ ἡμεῖς σἠμερον ἀνακρινὁμεθα–1 4, 7), and this answer is also understood: “seeing the courage of Peter and John and noticing that they were unbookish and simple people, they were surprised” (DA 4, 13). Then, having removed them and called them again, they “commanded them not to speak or teach at all about the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered: Judge, is it right before God to listen to you more than to listen to God? We cannot help but say what we saw and heard” (4, 18–20). This story ends wonderfully about the first miracle, the first test and the first boldness before the rulers of this world, which was revealed by the two chief apostles. When they told their people about everything that had happened (πρὸς τοὺς ιδίους), the latter offered up a unanimous prayer that God would strengthen His servants in the face of the threatening persecution, “and through their prayer, the place where they were gathered was shaken, and they were all filled with the Holy Spirit, and spoke the Word of God with boldness.” (D.A. 4, 31). It was a significant moment of new self-awareness and self-determination of the militant church, and at the head of it stands the chief apostolic duo, as the highest embodiment of church self-consciousness. This fact is in no way diminished in its significance by the fact that the apostle directly acts as a healer and preacher. Peter, however, is inseparable from John, as is confirmed by various details of the narrative. This also corresponds to the rank of ap. Peter, for he has the primacy of eldership, representation, external authority, while John has the power of influence, internal authority. Therefore, the representative of the Apostolic Church ad extra is invariably the ap. Peter in possession of the chief apostle’s rod, the “key man” of Christ: when electing an apostle instead of Judas (D.A. 1, 15–22); in the sermon after the descent of the Holy Spirit (2, 14–16) and the acceptance of the Jews (2, 37–40); in the first sermon in the temple (3, 12–26); in pronouncing the verdict against Ananias and Sapphira (5, 1-11), in accepting pagans into the church (10), in formulating the opinion of the Apostolic Council (15, 7-11) 27. But this property of Petrov’s seniority does not at all make him the only authorized head of the apostolate, as this follows from the story just considered, where, as we have seen, John does not play the passive role of only Peter’s companion, who shared with him the consequences of his actions. But we see the same thing once again at one of the decisive moments in the life of the primal church, when the Writer again speaks of the chief apostolic duo: before the sermon among the Samaritans. It was not easy to decide to preach baptism to the Samaritans, given the age-old prejudice against them. And so we see how “the apostles who were in Jerusalem, hearing that the Samaritans had received the word of God, sent to them Peter and John, who, having come, prayed for them so that they would receive the Holy Spirit” (DA 8, 14–15). This premise, of course, does not mean the lower official position of the chief apostolic duo among the twelve apostles, but it testifies precisely to their highest authority, by virtue of which they could make important and responsible decisions there and take corresponding actions; however, for this it turns out that Peter alone is not enough, but it is the chief apostolic duo that is sent 28 . “Then they laid hands on them (the Samaritans), and they received the Holy Spirit” (3:17). The act of bringing down the Holy Spirit through consecration was accomplished by the Chief Apostolic duo as a whole - a remarkable and unique case of its kind. What follows is the story of Simon the Magus, who, seeing what had happened, “brought them money, saying: give me this power too” (8: 18–19), and answers him, as usual for a duo, the apostle. Peter. After this, “having testified and preached the word of the Lord, they went back to Jerusalem” (8:25). This exhausts the cases of mentioning the Chief Apostolic duo among the weather forecasters. In the Epistle to the Galatians 2, 9 ap. Paul calls the apostle John, along with James and Cephas, “pillars” (of the church). There are not many of them, but they are very expressive. We also know the Apostle John as the author of three conciliar epistles and the Apocalypse. As for the messages, being a preaching of love, they, together with the Gospel of John, form a kind of new testament in the New Testament. In the respect that interests us, from the point of view of the Chief Apostle of John, the fact that the beloved disciple of Christ here gives the faithful a certain preliminary information about the Antichrist, who is already active in the world, deserves attention, and in this sense, the “last time” has begun, although a long period will still be required for its maturation: “children! lately! And as you have heard that the Antichrist will come, and now many antichrists have appeared” (1 John 2:18). Wed. 1 Io. 4, 3; 2 Io. 1, 7. The appearance of the “beast,” the Antichrist, is described in more detail in the Apocalypse: “and he opened his mouth to blaspheme against God,” etc. (Apoc. 13, 5–8). This is a foreshadowing of the Antichrist, which is found in St. Paul: 2 Thess. 2:3-10, is not only of the greatest importance, but is also an act of chief apostolic authority. There is a difference between the admonition of the Thessalonica Christians by the apostle. Paul and a solemn, as it were, declaration of war against the already active Antichrist, 29 which we have in John. The solemn and majestic testimony of John's chief apostleship is his Apocalypse, the Revelation given to him. John is the New Testament prophet among the apostles and the only apostle among the prophets 30. In addition, he is generally the only New Testament prophet who seals the entire New Testament with his word. An apostle-prophet, he is a co-servant of the Angel of God, who reveals secrets to him: “I, John, have seen and heard these things. When I heard and saw, I fell at the feet of the Angel showing me this in order to worship (him). But he said to me: see, don’t do this; For I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers the prophets and with them who keep the words of this book; Worship God” (Apoc. 22:8–9). And before that: “I fell at the feet of him (the angel) to worship him, but he said to me: see, don’t do this; I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who have the testimony of Jesus; Worship God, for in the testimony of Jesus there is the spirit of prophecy” (19.10). The revelation given to John through the Angel is “the revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon happen. And he showed it by sending (it) through His angel to His servant John” (Apoc. I. 1-2). At the same time, John acts not only as a witness and keeper of the mysteries of God, but also as the primate of the seven churches located in Asia (symbolically behind these seven churches are hidden seven images of universal Christianity, the destinies of the Church of Christ in the world - respectively, the spirits at His throne and the seven golden lamps and the sacred seven of the gifts of the Holy Spirit). To these seven Asian churches, and through them to the entire universal church, urbi et orbi, John sends his apostolic blessing: “grace to you and peace from him who is, who was, and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ” (1: 4-5). The destinies of the church are revealed to John, not only the local Eastern churches in relation to which he is the indisputable head and primate, 31 but also the entire universal church for all times until the very second coming of Christ and until the new heaven and the new earth and the descent of heavenly Jerusalem. The election for this Revelation in itself, even if it did not apply to the beloved disciple of Christ, is already elevation to the prophetic chief apostleship. Here it crowns the chief apostleship acquired during the Savior’s earthly days. 32 After all, suppose for one minute that the Revelation would have been given not to John, but to Peter: what stunning evidence in favor of the primacy of Petrov would have been seen in this! The one who is entrusted with the care and management of the entire church is also entrusted with the management of its future destinies. But, after all, a similar conclusion arises in relation to John, whose chief apostleship is undoubtedly evidenced by the Revelation given to him. There is no need to exaggerate: its meaning can and should be understood only in the light of what we already know about it from the Gospel (as it should be with regard to Peter). The fact of Revelation in itself does not establish the chief apostleship, but it also testifies to it and must be understood in connection with it, as its revelation and confirmation. And conversely, the absence of revelation from the Chief Apostle Peter testifies that the primacy of Peter, having the high priesthood, does not include prophecy and, therefore, is internally limited to it. And, in any case, there is no basis to see in it the fullness of all ministries, not only the high priestly, but also the royal and prophetic, as is customary in Catholic theology, 33 for it is in contradiction with the fact of the Apocalypse of John alone. At the same time, another difference becomes clear between the two images of chief apostleship. The priesthood is a continuity in both the Old Testament and New Testament churches. On the contrary, the prophetic ministry is individual and does not know successive transmission. In addition, if we assume that the beloved disciple has not tasted universal death and remains in an unknown way, then succession becomes not only unnecessary, but also impossible in view of the fact that he himself invisibly shepherds his flock, prophetically inspiring it. At least, these conjectures arise on their own, upon review of all the data related to this. We now submit these exegetical observations to the judgment of competent criticism, fully aware of how difficult and responsible this area is and how limited individual efforts are in it. It goes without saying that the fact of the dual chief apostleship of Peter and John 34 established here raises the question of a whole series of further fundamental questions of paramount importance, mainly from the field of teaching about the Church. However, these questions themselves go beyond the scope of this essay. We reproduce here the results of this study, relying mainly on the latest extensive research by Michel d’Herbigny S. I. Theologia de Ecclesia, I-II, 2nd ed. Paris. 1920–1. To prove Peter's primacy, D'Herbigny also cites examples that cannot but cause surprise: this includes numerous manifestations of Peter's personal temperament, not always favorable for him: see I, 217, D. Even a gentle reproach in Gethsemane: Simon, write it off? (Mr. 14, 37) falls into the primate register. In the Gospel those who fulfill the law of Christ are called blessed and are worthy of testing their fidelity to it: the Beatitudes! Wed. also the text of Ev. Luke II, 27–28: Blessed is the womb that bore You, and the breasts that nourished You! And He said: blessed are those who hear the Word of God and keep it. Wed. also in the parable of the servants: blessed are the servants whom the master finds awake when he comes. OK. 12, 37, 43. In d’Herbigny (L. p. I, 257) we find the following explanation on this matter: At praecipue Petrus dicitur a Christo scandalum et Satanas in ipso, Mt. 16, 23. Resp.: A) Inde patet promissionem evanescere, neg.; factam esse, non propter maiorem Simonis sanctitatem aut perspicacius iudicium, sed e libera Dei electione, conc. – In munere Petrus Ecclesiam sustinet; privatim Simon potest fieri scandalo et quasi Satanas videri (here a reference is made to the corresponding judgment of Vl. Solovyov in La Russie et l’Eglise Universelle, p. III). In this judgment, the libera Dei electio quietly introduces the Calvinistic principle of predestination by divine arbitrariness, regardless of personal self-determination, in order to transform Peter's confession from the feat and inspiration of faith into a practice of munus ex opere operato. If one can see Peter’s munus here, it is only in the fact that he speaks on behalf of the apostles, in unanimity with them, in a word, as a chief apostle, and not a super-apostle. And on what basis (in this case, following Solovyov) does d’Herbigny believe that Peter’s appeal “let not this be done to you” (Matthew 16:22), in a hidden form containing an undoubted Judaistic heresy about the earthly kingdom of the Messiah (as is clear from the entire answer of the Lord: Matthew 16:23-28), he made privatim, as private person? After all, this was a direct continuation of the very conversation in which the same Peter had just made his confession. Is it not more correct to assume that Peter, indeed, thinking that he, as such, had been given special powers, immediately tried to use his munus, no longer in connection and agreement with the apostles, but separately from them, individually: “having recalled Him, he began to rebuke Him.” And in this case, here we must see a direct, albeit silent warning against the wrong path, an indication of how not to understand the munus, Petrovo’s authority. The nuance introduced by the original Aramaic text seems to us to be comparatively minor. It could say: kypha in both cases, where it says: Πέτρος καὶ ἐν ταύτη τῆ πέτρα - Peter and on this stone, not to mention the fact that the exact Aramaic text cannot be restored and, on the contrary, the Greek is authentic for us. Even if there were complete identity of the words: Peter and on this Peter, this would not in the least eliminate the deliberate duality of meaning and the play on words based on it. Therefore, for exegesis this does not matter. “Petrus kommt immer in der doppelten Eigenschaft: als Apostel und als Fürst der Apostel in Betracht; den Aposteln ist kein Recht ohne Petrus, Petrus aber der Vorzug des Primates ohne die Apostel ertheilt worden.” (Phillips. Kirchenrecht, I. 121). If primacy does not depend on apostleship, then why can one affirm the apostleship of Peter? Isn’t the higher rank absorbed by the lower, as, for example, the deaconry is absorbed by the priesthood, and does the priest remain at the same time in the rank of deacon? It is noteworthy that after Peter’s denial, when the Lord questioned him three times, he is no longer called Peter, but Simon var-Jonin (John 21:15-17) - his former, personal name before the renaming. The parallel can be drawn further: as in Matt. 16, 17–18 The Lord turns to Peter: “Blessed are you, Simone, Var-Jonah,” and only then solemnly confirms the name given to him upon recognition: you are Peter, - so here, after the renunciation, the Lord makes this renaming seem non-existent, removes it, returning Peter to the position before this naming. This silent verbal gesture can be explained as follows: after you did not stand on the rock, did not show yourself to be Peter, and I do not call you Peter, but only as before: Simone Var-Jonah. In other words, this is exactly what it means that being Peter is not a munus, which cannot be interrupted and, to a certain extent, does not depend on the personal properties of its bearer, but a state that, on the contrary, can be interrupted and was interrupted in the life of Peter, according to the direct testimony of the Lord himself. But we have a similar, although, of course, not so expressive example of the weakening of his Petrineness in Peter in the well-known case of a collision with the apostle. Paul regarding Judaism, when he, along with others, was guilty of “hypocrisy” and “did not act directly according to the truth of the Gospel” (Gal. 2:11-15). At the same time, again, Peter’s mode of action separates him from the rest of the apostolate, bound by the decree of the Jerusalem Council, which was also binding for Peter: in modern language, Peter adopted, so to speak, personal, not general apostolic tactics in dealing with the pagans, for which he was rebuked by the Apostle Paul. In Catholic apologetics, even this is seen as an indirect confirmation of primacy: De aliquo primo Apostoli debebant sponte cogitare. Nam ubique tunc forma gubernii fuit monarchia; in ipsa synagoga, prae Synedrii collegio, Pontifex eminebat religiose et etiam civiliter. Christus ergo debuisset clarissime proponere aequilitarismum, si illum intendisset (111). At qui commendat sane humilitatem ne supra ceteros extolli velint (Mt. 18, 1–4, – Mc. 9, 33, Lc. 9, 46–48), at non paritatem. Immo, revera disputantibus de primo. Christus – a) non negat aliquem fore primum. Si tamen non intenderet aliquem primum hierarcham instituere, multo simplicius diceret: Yos omnes pares eritis. Ne occasio quidem orta esset disputandi, si Christus paritatem innovisset... Sic ipse Petrum extollit, ut inde ceteri fiant invidi (!!!) (d’Herbigny, I, 213). Isn’t it easier to turn to the quoted Gospel texts to make sure that the Lord treated the issue of primacy with sorrow and condemnation (and not at all with silent or at least indirect recognition), as well as sometimes the disciples themselves, as was the case with James and John and their mother, who asked for primacy (Matthew 20, 24. Mark 10, 41). The strange idea that the Lord aroused envy in the disciples by singling out Peter does not correspond to reality. True, the disciples, still steeped in Jewish ideas about the Messiah, were tempted by thoughts of primacy, although nowhere is there any indication that these feelings were caused precisely by competition for Peter, and there was absolutely no reason for it, for everything that was promised to Peter was promised to them. Indeed, the position of another disciple, “his beloved Jesus” - John, could have aroused jealousy, but this did not happen either. See, for example, d’Herbigny, I, 252–3: Petrus eas tenebit pro Regno in utraque eius conditione, sive initiali (i. et Ixclesia militante), sive perfecta.” The latter is an exaggeration leading to obvious inconsistencies (in particular, placing Peter above the Mother of God and the angels in the role of “vicar of Christ.”) Therefore d'Herbigny (I, 253) is wrong when he says that hic (Mt. 16, 19) datur soli Petro id, quod dein toti collegio, includendo Petrum. Minime vero extensio 18, 18 derogabit privilegio alterius concesus.” It is not given to Peter, but is only promised the same thing that is promised 18, 18 and to all the apostles (to whom it was previously promised in the person of Peter, and not Petro soli, as is clear from the entire context). On this basis, we cannot agree with the following: a) Ipsa in Evangelio repetitio textus, qui sub utraque forma alibi deficit, magis significat distinctionem historicam utriusque collectionis: eadem potestas datur, sed hinc uni, illinc collegio (not datur, but promittitur!), b) Magis ex utroque Lextis patet Petrum signulariter pro se etiam solum, ea quae ceteris collective (completely arbitrary statement); ceteros vero non recipere nisi in quantum et Petrus includatur in eorum collective (conclusion from the previous), c) Immo, qui per se solum eam habeant, Petrus exercere eam possit supra cunctos a se distinctos, etiam ergosupra ceteros Apostolos. (This arbitrary statement, inconsistent with the context of the Gospel story, is based on the assumed equation of present and future tense: dabitur and datur). And from here the last conclusion is made without restraint: “At ut patet (!), non collegium supra Petrum hoc etiam collegium supra aliud membrum nisi ex auctoritate et delegatione Petri, ae reservata semper etiam tunc ultima appellatione et sententia ad Petrum solum.” In this light, we also understand the related texts about the general and equal significance of the apostles, such as: responding to the dispute about primacy, the Lord continues: “But you remained with Me in My troubles, and I bequeath to you, as My Father, a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on the throne judging the twelve tribes of Israel” (Luke 22, 28–30 ). If we look for reasons for the justification of power “in utraque ecclesiae conditione, sive initiali, sive perfecta” (see above note), then it can be found, if desired, here, but in application to the twelve. Even more expressively Matt. 18, 27–28. “Foreman” Peter asks on behalf of everyone: “So we have left everything and followed You; what will happen to us? Jesus said to them, “Truly I say to you, that you who have followed Me, in the future, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” – In the future greatness and glory of the apostles, on the verge of eons, no distinction is made between the apostles (although asking Peter specifically would seem to give reason to single him out from the twelve). This also includes the vision of the Seer of God about the city of God, heavenly Jerusalem, which has 12 gates and 12 angels on them, and on the gates are written the names of the 12 tribes of the sons of Israel, and “the walls of the city have twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21, 12, 14). And this emphasized duodenum of the heavenly hierarchy, Old Testament and New Testament, when applied to the ecclesia in conditione perfecta, is quite expressive in itself and leaves no place even for the implied first hierarch among the twelve apostles, just as there is no place for him in the comparable twelveets of heaven and the Old Testament. Wed. d'Herbigny, 1. p. 262, 4, the parallelisms that he finds vere mirandum are in fact quite strained and arbitrary. Both of them put together the first successor of the apostles to the Roman see of Linus (Irinaeus. Adv. haeres. 3, 31). Let's give examples. Ap. Peter is repeatedly named here: “Peter, the foundation of the apostles, the stone of Christ’s Church, the beginning of Christians, feed the sheep of your fold gloriously, keep your lambs from the flattering wolves, (however, it is said about this: “by asking Peter three times, did you love Me, a three-fold rejection by Christ corrected is... Your three-fold, hedgehog healing the rejection before the passion, the lord, by the threefold prophecy of God, Peter, affirms love by questioning”). “Thou hast appeared the stone of faith to the key of grace.” “Today, as the First-Called of Christ, the Most Eternal Apostles have ordained thee, O blessed Peter,” as His representative to His Church and the First Throne.” “To you, the first-called and dearly beloved, as the first blessed chairman of the apostles, Christ appears, risen from the grave.” “The best of the apostles is Peter... and you are not ashamed of a stone, erect and lay a foundation for the church.” “The supreme foundation of the apostles... You were the first bishop of Rome, the first bishop of the great city, strength and praise and affirmation to the Church of Peter.” However, Paul is pleased no less, although usually in different words, but sometimes, in a strange way, in almost the same expressions as Peter: “O Christ, the seal and crown of your apostles, who was called at the end of the times, surpassed all in diligence.” “Paul is the mouth of the Lord, the foundation of teaching.” “Thou art the foundation stone of faithful souls, thou art of great worth and the cornerstone of the Savior and the Lord, O all-blessed Paul; on the foundation of thy, we pray, edification of lordship will be edified by all-praised virtues.” But the most instructive thing is when both of them are pleased with the Church almost in words alone. Here are some examples. Both of them are called “chief preachers of God: the one who was the leader of the apostles, and the one who worked more than others.” “The disciples of Christ and the foundation of the Church, the true pillars and walls and trumpets of the divine teachings and sufferings of Christ, the supreme Peter and Paul, as representatives of the whole world, let us praise...” “Oh, Peter, the stone and the foundation, and Paul, the chosen vessel! like the oxen of Christ, they have drawn all of them to the understanding of God.” (Arsenievo). “Peter, the supreme of the glorious apostles, the stone of faith, and the wonderful Paul, the holy church, vita and lamp. Paul, the mouth of the Lord, the foundation of faith." (Germanovo). “Citizens of Jerusalem on High, the stone of faith, the trinity of the Church of Christ, fishers of the world, who have now left those who rested their suffering on earth to God.” (John the monk). “Let us worthily praise the stone of the Church, the all-validated Peter, and the champion of Paul, the worldly world, as if we possessed the keys of heaven. Firm and divine preachers, the top of Your apostles, Lord.” “Rejoice, Peter and Paul, the foundations of the divine teachings are unshakable, friends of Christ, vessels of honor.” (Monk's Coats). Clarification of the meaning of this joint veneration of the “divine two” of the supreme apostles should be addressed first. This joint veneration of the duo of Peter and Paul is also expressed in the fast established by the church, preparing believers for the celebration of their memory (and, of course, there is not the slightest reason to assert that this fast also applies to the veneration of Peter specifically). Vl. Soloviev writes in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, p. 154, 2: “believing that among the closest disciples of Jesus no one had as much right to special distinction as the beloved disciple John, I counted how many times the Gospel and Acts mention John and how many about Peter. And it turned out that these numbers are approximately 1 to 4. Peter is named 171 times (114 in the Gospels and 57 in Acts), and John only 46 times (38 times in the Gospels, including those cases when he speaks about himself indirectly, and 8 in Acts). (D’Herbigny liked this statistics so much that he cited it twice: both in the lengthy Th. de ecclesia, I, 209.1 and in the popular L’unite dans le Christ, p. n. II). If Solovyov had asked himself how many mentions of Peter are associated with manifestations of his personal qualities and weaknesses, and not at all with his chief apostleship, if, further, using the same method, he had compared how many times the names of Judas, Herod, Anna, Pilate are mentioned in comparison with John, and even more so with the other apostles, he would have become convinced of how little useful this statistics is as a theological argument. But in application to the ap. To John, who clearly and deliberately does not name himself, although, as an Evangelist, he is de facto implied in all the events that he describes, Solovyov’s statistical-theological lapsus becomes downright striking. And, besides this, is it really possible to calculate, as equivalent marks, such, for example, mentions: “again Peter was rejected,” Io. 18, 27, and “Woman, behold your son” (John 19, 26). (Cf. Johannes in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexikon, VI, 1536 ff.). And if someone had decided to measure the significance of the Mother of God using a similar statistical method, forgetting about her “humility” (as in this case, the humility of her betrothed son, the Apostle John, is forgotten), then the results would have been even more striking. Of course, the statistical method is a valuable tool for exegetical analysis when used appropriately, but in this case it is crude and therefore unsuccessful. According to legend, during the reign of Domitian, John was thrown into boiling oil, but remained unharmed. And so he pleases the Evangelist-Theologian St. Church (service to St. John the Evangelist on September 26th): Truly you have appeared, a true friend, a great breastplate to the teacher Christ, He lay down on his back, from where you drew the wisdom of dogmas, With them you enrich the whole earth around, like God’s blasphemer, By the same token, this red Church of Christ now rejoices and rejoices. (Andrea Pyrrhus). As a witness of unspeakable mysteries, you cried out: Eternal Word, first to be to God and of that being of God. John the Apostle, confidant of Christ and friend, The sweetness of the Trinity, Ephesus and Patma, the affirmation is unshakable, but our help. (Glory). Reclining on the chest of the Teacher Christ at the Lord's Supper, From there you knew the ineffable and the heavenly voice thundered to everyone: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was to God, and God was the Word, The true light enlightens every person into the world to come, Christ the God and Savior of our souls. (John the monk). Apostle of Christ, Evangelist Theologian The indescribable secret of the ineffable wisdom has thundered for us as a teaching. Even in the beginning, having made it clear to the faithful, and putting aside those who were not, rejecting those who are heretical in words A breastplate has appeared and a friend is beloved, like Isaiah of great glamor and Moses the Seer of God. Having boldness towards God, pray diligently for our souls. Perhaps they will say to this that inspired writers know by the Holy Spirit, and therefore these very beggings are inappropriate. However, this challenge is not valid here. Of course, the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit is necessary in order to impart infallibility in the narration of divine things, which is unattainable by any human talent. But the apostles were called by the Lord precisely to be “witnesses” (Luke 24, 48. D.A. I, 8) and in particular John himself directly speaks of the apostles as eyewitnesses (I. 10, I. 1–3); Wed also 2 Peter I, 16. The only apostle who was not an eyewitness, in only one case received a direct revelation from God about an event in the earthly life of Christ, namely about the establishment of communion, at which he himself was not present, but therefore he says definitely: “I received it from the Lord, and handed it over to you.” (I Cor. 11:23). In this case, the exception confirms the general rule. Another assumption, acceptable here, is that John could have learned about this from the Mother of God, who lived in His house. Generally speaking, the stamp of special closeness to the Mother of God lies on the Gospel of John. However, in this particular case there is no direct basis for this assumption. We have a similar detail relating to the evangelist himself in the Gospel of Mark: “One young man, wrapped over his naked body in a veil, followed him; and the soldiers seized him. But he, leaving the veil, ran away from them naked” (Mark 14:51-1). Thus, even simple following was not safe, as is clear from the detention of the young man who escaped. However, when the Sanhedrin considered it necessary, John’s personal connections did not in the least prevent him from being brought to justice, and the same Annas and Caiaphas and “others from the family of the high priest” appeared as judges. It was after a sermon in the church in connection with the miracle of the healing of the lame man, when the duo Peter and John were taken into custody and brought before the court of the Sanhedrin: D.A. 4, 12 (and “they were recognized that they were with Jesus” 4, 1, 21). True, this time the matter ended well for them, but only because they did not find “an opportunity to punish them because of the people,” and not at all due to a lack of desire. This incident clearly confirms that, being present in the court of the high priest and then at Pilate and at Calvary, John was exposed to very real danger, not at all being in a particularly privileged position due to his acquaintance with the high priest. That following Christ at this time could well have been accompanied by an accidental and unexpected arrest is clear from Mr. 14, 51–2. Forecasters cf. the appeal to the Canaanite wife, rather in the sense of simply a woman: oh, woman! ὦ γύναι (in the translation: O woman!) Great is your faith” (Matthew 15:28). John 20:13 has a similar meaning: the angels say to her (Mary Magdalene: “Woman (γύναι) why are you weeping” and further: Jesus said to her: “Woman, why are you weeping? Who are you looking for?” (John 20:15). The impersonal appeal to the woman! is followed by a completely personal call by name: Mar! For an example, see Phillips. Das Kirchenrecht. I. Regensburg. 1845: so lange der Heiland selbst auf Erden wandelte, konnte freilich jeder selbst zu Ihm gehen, Er selbst vereinte alle zur Einheit. Doch nachdem Er von dieser Erde geschieden, musste Einer an seiner Stelle da sein, um den die Apostel, wie die andern Glieder der Kirche sich sammelten, einigten und schaarten und an den sie, als von Christus gesetzt, so fest, wie an Christus um Christ wi11en sich hielten, seiner Leitung, wie der Leitung Christi sich unterordneten, seiner Lehre als der Lehre Christi folgten. Dies Organ, durch welches Christus die Kirche leitet, durch welches Christus zur Kirche spricht, ist Petrus (70 pp. book). The development of this unique canonical Khlysty (“Christianity”) is given in the whole system of church law. But isn’t all kinds of Khlystyism (not only mystical, but also canonical) forbidden? To those who warned everyone in advance: “Then if anyone says to you: “Here is Christ” or “Here there” - do not believe it (Mark 13:21). “If they say to you, “Here he is in the wilderness,” do not go out; “Here He is in the secret chambers, do not believe” (Matthew 24:26)? Wed. also Lk. 17, 22–23. From the service on September 26th, in small. evening stichera on the State. exclaimed: “Rejoice, true Theologian, rejoice, beloved son of the Lord, for you, standing at the cross of Christ, heard the divine voice of the Lord: behold, now is your Mother who cried out to you. Since all things are worthy of you, as the great and beloved apostle of Christ, we please you.” On the lithium stichera (Andreas Pyrrhus): “Student of Spasov, virgin and theologian, To you, as a virgin, Virgin and Mother of God, We crucify Christ God before us, And you have preserved this like the apple of your eye, Thus pray for our souls to be saved.” From the service on August 15th. At the litia, the stichera are self-concordant: “It is fitting for the self-witness of the Word and the servants, and the mother of the flesh to see His dormition, the ultimate mystery about her: so that not only the hedgehog from the earth will see the ascension of the Savior, but also His Birth will testify to His repose. Moreover, gathered from everywhere by divine power, Zion reached the pre-sent to heaven, the highest Cherub. "... On verses. poem. self-titled: “When you came forth, O Virgin Mother of God, to You who was born inexpressibly, you were James, the brother of God and the first priest, Peter, the most honorable chief, the chief of theologians, and the entire divine apostolic face, above the Most Holy One and the elder angelic powers, marveling at miracles, leaning towards each other”... 50 ps. poem. Byzantine: “When the presentation of Your most pure body was being prepared, then the apostles, standing in bed, beheld Thee with trepidation: and Ovi, looking at the body, was overcome with horror, Peter cried out to Thee with tears: O, Virgin, I see Thee clearly stretched out, the belly of all, and I am surprised that future lives dwell in it pleasure. But, O Most Pure One, pray diligently to Your Son and Your God, that Your flock may be saved unharmed.” It is curious that d’Herbigny (1, 219), citing the text of Io. 20:2–8, interrupts it with an ellipsis just before the words about John: “both sight and faith.” And thus, new evidence is obtained in favor of the generally accepted primacy of Peter: Ipse ergo discipulus dilectior priores dat partes Petro (cf. the equally tendentious interpretation of Bossuet ib. note: c'est lui aussi a qui Saint Jean reserve Thonneur d'entrer le premier dans le tombeau, ou il n'etait arrive que le second, afin qu'il fut le premier temoin des marques de la resurrection (one remains surprised that John even decided to come to the tomb before Peter, and did not wait for his arrival). o.21,3,7,1 This reference, as anyone can easily see, has nothing to do with the glorification of Peter’s faith (as if the fact of faith is less important than its glorification). Patriarch Nektarios of Jerusalem (about the power of the pope in 1682) among other things wrote that “if the pope were the head of the church, then the first Roman bishops would have been the heads of the still living apostles, for example. John." Therefore, we cannot agree with d’Herbigny (1. e. 1, 220, D), who states this event as follows: Primus (Petrus) manifestatur thaumaturgus, prima, postquam Jesus Malchum sanavit, facta sanatione (3, 4–7). Coram Ioanne, Petrus omnino eminet,solus loquens et agens: “quod habeo hoc do...; et allevavit eum.” Wed. d'Herbigny (I, 222, § 161, 1), which, of course, dwells only on the mission of Peter: ipsa Petri auctoritas videtur requiri, despite the fact that in fact it is not Peter who is sent, but a duo, and the authority of the latter is required. Even Vl. Soloviev, in the Tale of the Antichrist, puts the first identification and denunciation of the Antichrist into the mouth of Elder John, the leader of Eastern Christianity, in whom he, obviously, himself sees the Apostle John. The artistic form here makes it difficult to accurately understand the theological ideas of Vl. Solovyov, but we do not know how to understand him otherwise than in the spirit of the teaching about the two chief apostles, the double primacy of universal Christianity. (His ideas about Paul are the most unclear). – In this case, Vl.’s earlier points of view. Solovyov - about the primacy of Peter alone - in La Russie et l’Eglise universelle, should be revised and accordingly complicated in the spirit of later teaching, which is more consistent with V.S. Solovyov’s original plans about the “union of churches” and “the world of East and West”. In Catholic apologetics, only the final motive is used - about the chief apostleship of John (cf., for example, d'Herbigny L'Unite dans le Christ, 25-6. Also Un Newmann russe, passim). A curious confession after the capture of Constantinople by the crusaders in 1204 breaks out in the message of Pope Innocent III: “Peter founded only one church, namely unum caput ecclesiarum omnium, while John founded several in Asia. Mary Magdalene announced the resurrection of the Lord to Peter and John. The latter went ahead of the first to the coffin, looked in, but did not enter. In the same way, the Greek people received the preaching of the Gospel before the Latin, but did not accept it, because the Greek teachers, neither before nor now, with the exception of very few, did not achieve a complete understanding of the Holy Testament and the deep mysteries of the Divine, while the Latin people penetrated into the inner and deep mysteries. The Apostle had the Greeks in mind when he spoke about himself: they did not yet know the writings of Io. 20, 9. The Latin people are of the Christ type; the Greek people, who received John, are a type of the Holy Spirit... And yet the Greek people, a type of the Holy Spirit, refuses to learn from the Latin that the Spirit also proceeds from the Son” (Migne, R. L., t. 215, col. 457–8). It is known that in the disputes about the celebration of Easter that took place between East and West, the Eastern, in defense of their practice, referred to the fact that the apostle celebrated this way. John, and thereby challenged the demands of the apostolic see (Euseb. Hist. V, 27, letter of St. Polycarp). John “as a priest” - ierevs - according to legend, wore a golden high priestly tablet on his forehead (Polycarp), fuit summus sacerdos et, pontificale petalon gessit (Rufinus), et pontifex, auream laminam in fronte portans (Hieron). An attempt to interpret Io. 21, 22 in the sense that the words of the Savior were fulfilled in the Apocalypse (“if I want, let him remain until I come”), in addition to the obvious stretch, is also refuted by the firmly established fact that the Revelation of John was written around the time of Nero and, in any case, earlier than the Gospel, therefore, it is already assumed to be the latter, and therefore cannot be used to fulfill his prophecy. Wed. eg Phillips, Kirchenrecht, 1, § 14–16; Petri hohes Priesterthum. P. prophetisches Lehramt, P. Konigthum. This opinion is not new in patristic literature. So. St. Theodore the Studite calls John, by the way, ἰσόπετρος equal to Peter (Laudatio St. Joan. Evang. 10–12. Migne, P. G. 99, 784 C. 785 A, 788 B). St. Cyril of Alexandria also writes: “Peter and John were both apostles and saints, and of equal measure ἰσόπετρος endowed through the Holy Spirit by our Savior Christ. Therefore, out of equal dignity ἑκ ἰσομόρους ἁζίας or power αὑθεντίας, were they really revered, two as if for one person? In his conciliar letter to Nestorius, he calls Peter and John ἰσοτιμοι, equal in honor as far as they are apostles and saints. disciples (Migne P. G. 77, 112 B) It is characteristic that this comparison is used by St. father in order to refute those who separate the divine and human hypostasis in the Lord Jesus Christ. As an example, he points out that the apostles Peter and John, with all their equality in honor and apostolic power, however, do not merge into one person. That. the very meaning of this comparison, tertium comparationis, further strengthens the thought of St. father about the perfect equality and likeness of the apostles Peter and Paul. St. John Chrysostom (discourse 88 on St. John) notes about the apostles Peter and John: “they had to take charge of the universe” (m. 8, book 2, p. 601).