‘Η πετρα is
interpreted allegorically by Athanasius in his Commentaries on the Psalms to
mean Christ. There he calls on 1 Cor 10,4 to aid his exegesis: η πετρα ο Χριστος. Christ is called
the Rock in the sense of being the source of the individuals salvation, (Exp.
in Ps. 26,5) while His θεια λογια are said to be the honey from the Rock which
nourishes His people, (Exp. in Ps. 80,17) namely His teaching which
builds up the Church. On another occasion he uses Mt 16,18b as a N.T. parallel
to Ps 57,9, “God established her (= the City of God which Athanasius identifies
with the Church) for ever”. (Exp. in Ps. 47,9) This text offers us no
more precise details as to what πετρα might refer to.
The term,
however, is used in a somewhat different sense in the letter of Athanasius to
the Bishops of Egypt and Libya (A.D. 356) where he tells them that “the faithful
disciple of the Gospel, having the gift of discernment in things spiritual, and
having built his house of faith upon [this] rock, has secured himself firm and
steadfast from all their deceits”. (Ad. Epp. Aeg. et Lib. 4) The “rock”
referred to here is the “discernment of spirits”—a reference most probably to
the ability to interpret Scripture according to what is called the Regula
Fidei. The N.T. text which Athanasius alludes to is Mt 7,24b and not, in
the first place at least, Mt 16,18. It is worth recalling that in Mt 7,24b, the
“rock” in the parable stands for the words of Our Lord, i.e. His teaching.
Athanasius applies I there to the teaching of the Church in the Regular
Fidei. The only other apparent allusion not Mt 7,24b is that found in the Historia
Arianorum, where Ossius is described as “having built his house of faith
upon the rock”. (Hist. Arian. 43,3) The “rock” here most probably refers
to the Nicene Faith, (See Hist. Ar. 42,3) which as we saw is identical
with the Regula Fidei.
The term οικοδομεω, common to
both Mt 7,24b and Mt 16,18b, is otherwise used by Athanasius, usually in
analogies to depict God’s activity in Creation, (Or. c. Ar. I, 23)
i.e. when not used merely sensu proprio. (E.g., Ad Const. 15-18)
Speaking directly of God’s creative activity, he prefers the term θεμελιοω, a
preference determined to a great extent by his exegesis of Prov 8,23. (Or.
c. Ar. II,41) This term is also found where Athanasius describes the new
life of grace as founded in Christ, (Or. c. Ar. II, 73) again
within the context of his exegesis of Prov 8,23, the key to which exegesis
Athanasius informs his readers is the Confession of Peter, “the sovereign
principle of our Faith”. (Or. c. Ar. II, 73) Within this same context
the term θεμελιος is most frequently used, following 1 Cor 3,10-11, with reference to
the incarnate Son of God as the foundation of which the Church is built:
“Therefore according to His Humanity he is founded (θεμελιουται), so that we like precious stones could be built upon Him (εποικοδομειθαι) and become a temple of the Holy Spirit who dwells in us. As He is
the foundation (θεμελιος) and we the stones built (εποικοδομουμενοι) upon Him, so also He is the vine and we are like branches joined on
(to Him), not according to the Essence (ουσιαν) of His
Divinity—since that would be impossible—but rather according to His Humanity .
. .” (Or. c. Ar. II, 74) Christ, then, is the foundation on which the
Church is built.
On the
other hand, when Athanasius writes to Serapion to defend the orthodox teaching
with regard to the Holy Spirit, whose denial by the Tropici he saw as a logical
conclusion from their error concerning the Son, (Serap. I, 2) he affirms
that the Church was founded (τεθεμελιωται) on the
Trinitarian Faith which the Lord gave, the Apostles proclaimed, and the Fathers
defended. (Serap, I,28) “And that they may know this to be the
faith of the Church, let them learn how the Lord, when sending forth the
Apostles, ordered them to lay this foundation (θεμελιον) for the
Church, saying: ‘Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the
name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Spirit’ (Mt 28,19). The Apostles
went and thus they taught; and this is the preaching that extends to the whole
Church which is under heaven.” (Serap. I,28) Echoing the Eusebian
concept of the foundation of the Church as the effect of the Apostles’
preaching, Athanasius sees this foundation not only in historical terms (though
these are clearly included) but in metaphysical, ever-contemporary terms. He
has a more refined concept of the foundation of the Church as resulting from
the preaching of the Apostles than that which we saw in Eusebius of Caesarea,
since he stresses both the content of the preaching and the act of proclamation.
The content
of the Apostolic teaching, which for Athanasius is no mere abstraction but the
objective Faith given by Christ and preserved from one generation to the next
by the “Fathers”, (cf. Serap. I,28) is thus understood by Athanasius to
be the foundation of the Church in every age: “ille enim loca, vos vero habetis
apostolicam fidem . . .” Athanasius could therefore write to his “sons” in
Alexandria, meaning that wherever the Apostolic Faith was preserved, there was
the Church. In this sense he exhorts his readers in another context to remain επι τον θεμελιον των αποστολων (cf. Eph 2,20) and to hold fast to τας παραδοσεις τως πατερων (De syn.
54,3) as he has previously dismissed the Arians for having strayed form the
foundation of the Apostles. (De Dent. Dion. 27,3) It is not without
reason that on at least two occasions Athanasius explicitly links the objective
Faith proclaimed by the Apostles with the traditions of the Fathers who
preserved and handed on this Truth, (Serap. I,28) indicating that for
him Apostolic teaching and apostolic succession together constituted Apostolic
Tradition in the full sense of the term.
From the
foregoing it follows that Athanasius understood that the “rock” or “foundation”
on which the Church was built as in one sense Christ and in another sense the
Apostolic Teaching. Considered ontologically and in the strictly theological
sense, Christ is the rock or foundation, (Cf. espec. Or. c. Ar. II,74)
but considered economically and in a relative theological sense, the Apostolic
Teaching is said to be the rock or foundation of the Church. (Cf. espec. Serap.
I,28) Just as Christ is only known through the Apostolic preaching, so in
turn the Apostolic Teaching is such insofar as its content is Christ.
Athanasius
is no nominalist, as can be otherwise gathered from his attack on the extreme
Arians who, according to him, use language not as they ought to, namely to
signify reality and relate us to that which is signified, but only to convey
opinions about what they think exists. (See De syn. 34,4-35,3)
For Athanasius the Apostolic Teaching signifies that which is: it is the means
by which we know Christ, as Christ is the means by which we know the Father.
Consequently the Apostolic Teaching and Christ, though distinct, are one and
the same, Christ being the metaphysical content of the Apostolic Teaching,
while the Apostolic teaching is the historical intellectual articulation of
Christ preserved and handed on from one generation to the text by the Apostles
and their successors, the “Fathers”. This is reflected in a reference found in
a short letter to two presbyters in Jerusalem, John and Antiochus, written near
the end of his life (ca. 371-372), where after admonishing them to avoid
discussion on disputed points which are disturbing the faithful, he says: “But
let you, having your foundation (θεμελιος) secure, which is
Jesus Christ our Lord, and the confession of the Fathers concerning the Truth,
avoid those who wish to say more or less than that . . .” (Ad Joan. et Ant.)
Here it may be added, “the confession of the Fathers concerning the Truth”
refers specifically to the Apostolic Teaching in its contemporary form:
the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea.
When we
return to the Latin fragments above, we note how consistent with the mind of
Athanasius as just outlined, is the identification there of the Confession of
Peter with the “rock” on which the Church is found. (1) In that letter the
“rock” refers in the first place to the subject matter of the Confession—that
which is confessed. (2) But when Athanasius identifies the (Nicene) Faith for
which the Alexandrians are now suffering with the Confession of Peter, he does
not intend merely to limit this to an identification of the subject matter in
both, even though this is a prime concern of his, but he also points to a
formal identification of the subject matter in both, even though this is a
prime concern of his, but he also points to a formal identification. The formal
element is made explicit by the use of the phrase which introduces the
quotation of Mt 16,16-18: ex apostolica enim traditione pervenit ad vos,
et frequenter eam exseeranda Invidia voluit commovere, nec valuit: magis autem
per ea quae commoverunt sunt abscisse. Hoc est enim quod scriptum est: Tu es
Filius Dei vivi . . . The scene at Caesarea, which as we saw earlier, was
understood by Athanasius to constitute the salvifico-historical origin of the
Apostolic Faith, is here viewed from another, broader perspective—namely in
terms of the Apostolic Tradition which it thereby characterizes and of which it
is the origin. The two formal elements of Peter’s confession—in the earlier
analysis they merely appeared in the background—are (a) God revealing, and (b)
the specific human agency chosen by God to communicate His Truth: namely Peter
(the representative or spokesman of the Apostles) in his act of confessing.
These two elements are understood by Athanasius to characterize the “Apostolic
Tradition” as they characterized his “sons” that the contemporary Church which
confesses the Faith that Peter confessed does so because ethe Faith or Teaching
has been preserved and handed down by the successors of Peter and the
Apostles—whom Athanasius otherwise calls the “Fathers”—through whom the
Father continues to reveal His Son. (This formal identification of the
Confession of Peter and the Faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea has very
important implications for Athanasius’ theology of synodal authority) (3) Since
in the Apostolic Tradition God continues to reveal the Son through His
divinely-appointed agents from one generation to the next, evil (“Invidia” here
most probably means the source of envy [= the devil] and not the φθονος of
Eusebius [cf. HE 8,1,6-7] which describes the personal ill-will among Bishops) has
been unable up to the present to corrupt the Truth and will not prevail either
in the present or future. The latter deduction is the pointe of the
specific mention of Mt 16,16-18.
In summary,
we can say that Athanasius conceived the Rock or Foundation on which the Church
is built, as in the first place (i.e. metaphysically) Christ Himself.
Considered historically or functionally, the Rock is the objective Fath handed
down by means of the Apostolic Tradition. Thus the Regula Fidei, which
is the double confession regarding Our Lord whose salvifico-historical origins
are to be traced back to Petre’s Confession at Caesarea Philippi and his speech
at Pentecost can itself be called the Rock. Athanasius seems to interpret
Christ’s promise to Peter: “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my
Church” (Mt 16,18) as though the term “rock” referred to Peter’s act of
confession. But it is by means of the Apostolic Tradition, according to which
God continues to reveal the nature of the Son through the human agency of the
Fathers, that the Confession of Petre is actualized from generation to
generation—the most recent for Athanasius being the Synod of Nicaea—and thus
the Church is built upon this foundation will prevail against all evil. (Vincent
Twomey, Apostolikos Thronos: The Primacy of Rome as Reflected in the Church
History of Eusebius and the Historico-Apologetic Writings of Saint Athanasius
the Great [Münster: Aschendorff, 1982], 280-85)
