1 Corinthians 1:10-13

[Good_Fella]

What is the Catholic understanding of the entire thrust of the letter of Galatians which is Protestant prooftext bedrock against all things legal and that which hint at being associated with the Judaizers?

The Judaizers were rejecting the New Covenant, and thus they denied that we are justified by sanctifying grace and a living faith by works of charity (agape) in Christ, initially received through the sacrament of baptism which our Lord had instituted. They failed to see how the Church was the new Israel, that of the New Covenant. (cf. Gal 6:16). Paul’s condemnation of the Judaizers’ applies to their adherence to works of the law of the Old Covenant (ceremonial/moral) outside the system of grace. Paul’s concern doesn’t exclude works of any sort from justification (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). Paul affirms that works cannot justify, but by doing works in charity and grace, we can increase our justification as such works sanctify us. Thus Paul’s primary concern for the Galatian believers is that they follow the law of the New Covenant and thereby remain united to Christ. By adhering to the requirements of the Mosaic ceremonial law, they were abiding by the law of the Old Covenant. And by doing so, they were nullifying the New Covenant and Christ’s eternal sacrifice (cf. Gal 5:1). Hence, Paul’s condemnation of the doctrine of the Judaizers isn’t applied to the teachings and practices of the Catholic Church.

What is required of the Gentiles today? I admit that right now the scope of the Canon law baffles me…it seems at once exquisitely beautiful in actually having security and clarity of answers and simultaneously like a weighty overeach with the fast days, who can and can’t have a Carholic wedding or burial, celibacy, penances, obligatory feast days, mortal sins that will condemn you if you pass with them unconfessed and the like that “appear” to go against some of what Paul says in Romans and Colossians, etc.

Canon or ecclesiastical law is the body of rules governing the faith and practice of the members of the Church. In principle, this applies also to Protestant denominations. Without ecclesiastical law, no church could exist.

***Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven. - Matthew 18, 18 ***

 

[Good_Fella]

Hello,
What is the proof of the continuation of Peter’s office?.. Is not the history before Constantine ended the persecution scant and filled with controversy within the church due to the stress of severe persecution?

Answer to the first question: The fact that it’s an office. Like any office, it carries successors with it. But more importantly, what presupposes the continuation of the Pontifical office is the absolute need for it to ensure doctrinal unity among all the particular and local churches (of all nations and within all nations) in the Catholic Church and certainty of faith. In answer to your second question, controversy plagued the Church before and after Constantine. Sozomenus describes what happened when Pope Damasus l (366-384) condemned the heresy that made the Holy Spirit less than the Father and the Son: “When this question was discussed…the Bishop of the City of Rome…wrote to the Churches of the East that they must confess the consubstantial Trinity equal in honour and glory, as do the Western bishops. When he did this, all were quiet, as the controversy was ended by the judgment of the Roman Church; and this question at last seemed to be ended” (HE Vl, 22). In Africa, two synods were held at Carthage and Milevis in 416 A.D. to address the Pelagian heresy. In response to the decrees that the council fathers submitted to him, Pope Innocent l replied: “Keeping the ancient tradition, remembering the discipline of the Church, you now strengthen your religion by consulting us, as much as when you made the decree. You have decided to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See. For we, (the Pope) being placed here, intend to follow the apostle (Peter), from whom the episcopate itself and all authority of this name is derived” (Ep. XXX,2). In the case of Nestorius, Cyril of Alexandria (d.441) wrote to Pope Celestine l: “Since the old custom of the Churches persuades that questions of this kind should be communicated to His Holiness, I write driven by necessity” (Inter Ep. Caelestini l, Vlll, 1).

The idea that all bishops and clergy should abide by what the Roman Pontiff declares in matters of faith, since he is the successor of St. Peter, was echoed by the fathers of the council at Chalcedon in 451 after the dogmatic letter of Pope Leo l had been read: “This is the faith of the fathers; this is the faith of the apostles. We all believe so. Anathema to him who does not so believe; the orthodox believe so. Anathema to him who does not so believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo” (Act. ll) (cf. The Early Papacy, Adrian Fortescue: Ignatius Press). Now the Eastern Orthodox object that the council Fathers simply acknowledged and accepted the formula of Cyril along with Leo which affirmed traditional orthodox belief, but Catholics don’t claim that Pope Leo was inspired by the Holy Spirit to come up with that formula. Rather, the council would not have reached a consensus unless Pope Leo validated it, which he did after having developed it further. Pope Leo’s word was the final stamp of approval. The Eastern bishops were divided on the matter of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. Nestorius never recanted, and not all Eastern bishops accepted the decision of the council. A number of churches, supported Nestorius – though some not necessarily because of his doctrine – and broke with the churches of the West and, I should add Eastern orthodoxy.These events remind me of what we read in the Gospel of Luke 22, 32: “But I have prayed for thee, Simon, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.” In his commentary as translator of the text, Reverend James T. O’Connor writes: “Either God has revealed Himself to us, giving us a lasting message of truth, and provided that this truth be preserved secure and certain through an office capable of teaching the truth without error, or He has not revealed Himself at all, at least not definitively and once and for all in Christ.” He quotes Cardinal John Henry Newman: “There can be no combination on the basis of truth without an organ of truth” (cf. The Gift of Infallibilty, Bishop Vincent Ferrer Gasser: Ignatius). The gates of hell shall not prevail.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

I was also suprised to read of Jerome and Augustine squabbling like that…how hotly they contested every idea, interpretation … doctrine, or translation…

In his book *What is Dogma?, *Charles Cardinal Journet states that there are two aspects of faith. In other words, faith has two kinds of light which relate to each other symbiotically like two sides of the same coin: the prophetic light and the sanctifying light. The former reveals to us what we are to believe, while the latter presents what we should believe by compelling us to assent in faith. In this way, the sanctifying light “becomes the source of all justification”. The object of faith is twofold: it is "outside us as referring to the simplicity of divine Truth; it is “within us as referring to the complexity of the statement.” He adds: “The object of faith is both the statement so far as this touches reality and reality so far as this is shown in the statement.” This means that the divine reality becomes open to the statement by faith’s assent to it. However, the assent of the believer in faith “doesn’t terminate in the statement but in the real” (Here the author quotes St. Thomas Aquinas.). As statement, dogmas are an object of faith which we should believe in and assent to in faith. But there are people who suppose that faith doesn’t concern the statement but only the divine reality. However, such a notion is false because faith involves assent and thereby a judgment based on what is true and false regardless of how impenetrable the mind of God is. There have often been debates between the great theologians of the Church, but only during the phase of the development of doctrine. Neither Jerome nor Augustine ever disputed over a dogma of the Church, such as the Incarnation. Nor did they presume that human reasoning alone could receive the prophetic light which essentially is incommunicable without Divine inspiration (Scripture) and the guidance of the Holy Spirit (Tradition). There would be no need for the sanctifying light if we could assent in faith by relying on human reasoning alone.

For Protestants, the statement is only the written word of God, viz., the Bible. So, they are deprived of much sanctifying light: the power to assent to the reality in the statement. Catholic Tradition and the Magisterium are non-essentials. Since the Reformation, religious leaders and theologians have been engaged in a perpetual feud in hermeneutics. By being separated from Mother Church, the divine reality cannot become fully open to the statement for them. Protestantism is supported by only one pillar. As a result, the statement not only often fails to touch the reality (“Not by faith alone”) but also distorts it. What the different denominations do fundamentally agree on, though, is only the statement they have borrowed from the Catholic Church, while they see in the Bible only that which they wish to believe with hardly any thought given to the development of doctrine in the course of Tradition. Either there is biblical doctrine or there is unbiblical doctrine - the traditions of men. The Bible is formally sufficient to transmit all we should know to believe. Yet there is more God wills we should know than Protestants think.

Divine revelation isn’t inert, but advances once it has been deposited. Doctrine has developed by means of “fresh revelations” ever since God revealed himself to Abraham. This initial revelation of God simply consisted in the reality of God and God’s will to save and reward (“the two primary credibilia”). God’s appearance to Moses, the visions of the prophets, and the coming of the Messiah into the world effected the advance of doctrine as fresh revelations. Through the course of the centuries the prophetic light grew brighter and brighter made communicable only through the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles - those whom God appointed to make Him and His providence known to the world. Coupled with this is “advance by pure development.” Up to the Incarnation and the coming of Christ, “the advance of what should be believed” happened by fresh revelations or, in other words, “fresh articles of faith and basic dogmas”. Public revelation came to an end with the death of the last apostle, though advances still had to be made in the development of the doctrines the apostles bequeathed to the Church. The “advance by means of development”, according to Aquinas, isn’t a “substantial” advance, as is the advance of doctrine by means of fresh revelations, but only further “explanations” of the articles of faith deposited by the apostles through the written and spoken word. So many truths lie implicit in the New Testament (the consubstantiality of the Trinity, the two natures in Christ, and the Immaculate Conception of Mary) which requires much pondering. And these truths had been placed in the custody of God’s Church, as they would unfold over time.

Hence, Cardinal Journet tells us, there exists in the Church, on the one hand, the prophetic light that presents what we are to believe (the simple truths that exist wholly outside ourselves and are incommunicable to the naked mind) and, on the other hand, that voice inside which by the sanctifying light stirs us to believe what we feel should be believed: the Christian virtue of theological faith. Meanwhile, the divine reality becomes communicable to us “if by the word of God we mean the statements in which an infallible result is caused by the prophetic light addressed to the apostles and partially to their helpers” and, of course, their successors in the Magisterium.

***For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. - 1 Corinthians 13, 12 ***

:heaven:

 

[Schrodinger]

Good Fella,

Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. You are not typing into space; I am here and paying attention. I am reading and working on digesting the information and thoughts you are sharing.

 

[Good_Fella]

Good Fella,
Thank you very much for taking the time to respond. You are not typing into space; I am here and paying attention. I am reading and working on digesting the information and thoughts you are sharing.

You’re welcome, Schrodinger! :tiphat:
By reading your posts, I see you are sincere. At a Christian ecumenical forum I belong to, I’ve had people tell me to “Stop writing a book” and “You’re making my head spin.” So, I appreciate your being open.

:heaven:

 

[rcwitness]

Originally Posted by*Schrodinger
*What is the proof of the continuation of Peter’s office? Is not the history before Constantine ended the persecution scant and filled with controversy within the church due to the stress of severe persecution? Didn’t the Popes during the middle ages have to approved of by the secular rulers at the time (kings, emperors) from various kingdoms and agendas as political power shifted? What of bad popes, and two popes condemning each other, and different locations than Rome? Why exactly did Jan Huss, Luther, and Calvin start all of the pope = antichrist stuff? Why did the Eastern Orthodox split in 1054 and deny the Roman bishop’s primacy over all locations?

The authority of the Pope was never dependant on secular/civil powers. Constantine did, however, liberate Christianity from legal persecution. He also recognized the authority of the Pope. This didn’t make the Pope’s authority, but recognized what already existed. As a civil ruler, he was able to influence certain aspects of Christianity’s development. The Church, after this removal of persecution, was able to work and communicate freely. It was then, that the Church was able to openly define and proclaim matters regarding the Bishop of Rome and His Holy See.

 

[Richca]

I fully appreciate Paul saying we CAN be united together of the same mind and judgement with no divisions. Yet why is Cephas (Peter) included in the list?

Apparently, there were some christians among the corinthians who may have erroneously thought that either Peter, Paul, or Apollos was their Savior and God. Thence, Paul says “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” We are called christians because we are followers of Jesus Christ who is our master, teacher, savior, and God. The apostles themselves are disciples and followers of Jesus. Jesus said
“But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren.
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.
Neither be called masters, for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23: 8-10).

Why is Paul not instructing all to follow Peter in this little passage calling for unity?

 

[susanlo]

James and the other Apostles understood that Peter was given the primacy of authority.

When did James and the Apostles acknowledge that Peter had a primacy of authority?

Luke 9
46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

Luke 22
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 (same event as Luke 9:18-20) that Peter would have authority over the other apostles, why didn’t the apostles who were there at that moment understand this? Why didn’t Jesus remind them?

In Acts 8, Peter and John are sent by the apostles to Samaria. Would they have sent Peter away from Jerusalem if he was the leader of the whole church? Why was he sent instead of the one doing the sending? In Acts 15 when the leaders of the early church gathered to discuss circumcision and Jewish law, James (Jesus’ “brother”) who led the church in Jerusalem was the one who delivered the decision. Peter spoke, but clearly James was the one who gave the authoritative answer.

This is evident in Matthew 16:18: “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” In several instances in the Scriptures, when God gave authority to someone, he changed the name of that person: Abram - Abraham (primacy over all men; the father of a multitude of nations), Sarai - Sarah (primacy over all women; mother of nations) Jacob - Israel (the primacy of being the first Israelite) Saul - Paul (primacy in reaching out to the Gentiles), Simon - Peter (primacy over all the Apostles). This is known as the Law of First Mention, which means, when something is first mentioned in the Bible, the meaning of it remains the same throughout the rest of the Scriptures. Of all the Twelve, only Simon was given a new name.

All of these name changes were significant, but Abraham, Sarah, Israel, and Paul were not given specific authority over others with a reign of successors. What is different about Simon-Peter?

"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Greek text . . . suggests a material identity between petra and Petros . . . as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the two words. . . . Petros himself is this petra, not just his faith or his confession. . . . The idea of the Reformers that he is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable. . . . For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of “thou art Rock” and “on this rock I will build” shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected."
Dr. Oscar Cullman: Co-editor, Gerhard Kittel’s Theological Dictionary

In the first few hundred years of the church the rock/petra was often interpreted to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ or Christ Himself. Here is a compilation of early quotes regarding Matthew 16:18 and other related quotes. christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

 

[susanlo]

In John 21:1-11, Peter was the one that John chose to inform first that he saw Jesus standing by the shore. Peter was the first to jump into the sea while the others were behind getting into their boats. And it was Peter alone (the head fisher of men) who hauled the heavy net full of fish onto the shore land. In John 21:15-17, Jesus chooses to tell only Peter in a direct address: “Feed my sheep.” According to the underlying Greek text, in v. 16, the word for “feed” is poimaino, which means to act as shepherd, to rule and govern, to pastor, or act as presiding officer. In v. 17, the Greek word for feed is bosko, which simply means “to feed”. The preceding verse defines how it is that Peter is to feed Christ’s one flock of sheep - by a primacy of authority, not only over the Apostles, but over the entire Church founded by our Lord in union with the other apostles. The sheep refer to the clergy, the lambs refer to the laity.

Peter was often first. There is no argument about that. But when was he given authority over the other apostles?

In Matthew 23 Jesus says:
8*“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 that Peter was to be the first Pope (father) why didn’t he tell the apostles to call only Peter father/teacher/instructor? Why did He say that they are all brothers if Jesus had already announced that Peter would have authority over the other 11?

When Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep in 3 different ways in John 21, was Jesus giving him authority over all of Christendom or reinstating Peter after he denied Him 3 times?

 

[James248]

Peter was often first. There is no argument about that. But when was he given authority over the other apostles?

In Matthew 23 Jesus says:
8*“But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have one Teacher, and you are all brothers. 9And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10Nor are you to be called instructors, for you have one Instructor, the Messiah. 11The greatest among you will be your servant. 12For those who exalt themselves will be humbled, and those who humble themselves will be exalted.

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 that Peter was to be the first Pope (father) why didn’t he tell the apostles to call only Peter father/teacher/instructor? Why did He say that they are all brothers if Jesus had already announced that Peter would have authority over the other 11?

When Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep in 3 different ways in John 21, was Jesus giving him authority over all of Christendom or reinstating Peter after he denied Him 3 times?

In Acts, Peter takes charge early on. He selects Matthias, and is the main spokesman. In Galatians, Paul says that he went to Peter and James for instruction and the validation of his revelation from Jesus, which they gave.

 

[Good_Fella]

When did James and the Apostles acknowledge that Peter had a primacy of authority?

They understood as soon as Jesus had conferred the primacy of authority on him. - Matt 16:16-19

Their deference is a sign of their acknowledgement. First, the apostles looked to Peter to speak to Jesus on their behalf.

In the presence of the disciples, it was Peter who asked Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. - Matt 18:21

Peter spoke on behalf of the apostles when he told Jesus that they had left everything to follow Him. - Matt 19:27

Peter spoke on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus’ curse on the fig tree. - Mark 11:21

When Jesus asked who touched His garment, it was Peter who answered on behalf of the disciples. - Luke 8:45

It was Peter who sought clarification of a parable on behalf of the disciples. - Luke 12:41

Peter spoke out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet. They all looked to him to say something when confused.

• John 13:6-9

The apostles certainly understood that Jesus expected more from Peter than from the rest of them because of his leadership role. Jesus certainly held Peter accountable for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he had been appointed by Jesus as their leader. He should set a good example.

In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus asked Peter, and no other apostle, why he was asleep. Why you of all people? - Mark 14:37

The apostles understood why Jesus would pray for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail. They knew that he was charged to strengthen them in any likely event. Without Peter they were like sailors on a ship without a captain. - Luke 22:31-32

The apostles certainly knew their place when it came to authority. None dared to overstep their bounds.

Only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. The other apostles remained in the boat. - John 21:7

John arrived at the tomb first, but stopped and waited for Peter to arrive and enter it before him. - Luke 24:12; John 20:4-6

Peter was the first when the apostles entered the upper room after our Lord’s ascension. Out of respect for Peter’s leadership authority, none dared to enter the room before him. - Acts 1:13

It was Peter who initiated the selection of a successor to Judas after Jesus ascended into heaven. And no one questioned him, knowing that the primary authority lay with him as Jesus established. - Acts 1:15

As expected, Peter was the first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. The apostles understood why Peter should initiate the preaching of the Gospel. He was their leader, and as such held greater prerogatives. - Acts 2:14

Peter first preached on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in the nascent church. The apostles deferred to his primacy of authority. - Acts 2:38

The fact that Peter performed the first healing (and preaching) by the apostles attests that the primary of authority lay with him. The other apostles would surely have understood why it was that this power wasn’t first conferred on any of them by Christ. - Acts 3:6-7

Moreover, Peter declared the first anathema with respect to the incident concerning Ananias and Sapphira, which was ratified by God and brought about their death. Peter exercised his binding authority. The binding authority conferred on the other apostles was a share in Peter’s. But where he was present or when called upon to act, the primacy of authority lay with him. - Acts 5:3

John acknowledged Peter’s primary authority and the Petrine tradition of the nascent church when he wrote about Jesus exclusively charging Peter to “feed [his] sheep” and “feed [his] lambs.” All the apostles were present at the time. So, the flock included the apostles themselves. This is obvious by the fact that Jesus singled Peter out instead of addressing all the apostles together with Peter. Jesus appointed Peter to be the Chief Shepherd of the flock. In Protestantism, there is no chief shepherd, which explains why this religious movement is a divided house for lack of certainty. The Bible isn’t our Chief Shepherd. - John 21:15-17

Peter is recorded to have led the fishing and his net did not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is used as a metaphor for the Church.

• John 21:2-3,11

Not only did the apostles acknowledge Peter’s leadership status, but also the Jews who encountered Jesus and his disciples. Something must have hinted them; probably the apostles’ behaviour towards Peter. The tax collector approached Peter for Jesus’ tax; not James or John or the others. He must have perceived that Peter was the spokesman for Jesus (the Vicar of Christ). Jesus then paid the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both him and Peter, affirming that Peter was his representative on earth. - Matt. 17:24-27

And there are so many more references to Peter in the NT which I don’t have enough space to present. The fact that so much attention is given to Peter in the Scriptures signifies he was recognized as someone more than “an equal among equals”.

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Luke 9
46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest

Luke 22
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 (same event as Luke 9:18-20) that Peter would have authority over the other apostles, why didn’t the apostles who were there at that moment understand this? Why didn’t Jesus remind them?

The question is who shall be the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. ‘At the same time came the disciples to Jesus, saying, Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ (Matthew 18, 1). By who, they mean anyone.

They found out who that apostle would be soon afterwards. Maybe Jesus thought that it was time for the apostles to stop quarrelling among themselves once and for all. (Matt 18: 1, 16-19). This brings us to Luke’s gospel. Luke is known to organizes some events according to a common theme. Even though he rearranges the teaching material found in Matthew and Mark, he does occasionally reorder events found in their gospels. For instance, Luke includes the imprisonment of John the Baptist in his introduction to the prophet’s ministry (3:1-20) rather than at the time when the event actually took place. Matthew and Mark include this account chronologically much later than Luke does. He apparently chose to organize this particular event by its topic or theme rather than its sequential relationship to the other events. The same can be said of Luke’s description of Jesus’ rejection in Nazareth (4:16-30). Whereas Matthew and Mark tell of this event in terms of its chronology, Luke uses it in his introduction to Jesus’ ministry in Galilee (4:14-15). These two examples illustrate that Luke doesn’t always emphasize chronological order. Thus in Luke 9, (and 22) we have Peter’s declaration of faith in vv. 18-20 occurring before the apostles’ dispute among themselves in vv.46-48. But in Matthew’s gospel, this dispute happens before Peter’s declaration of faith. Nice try, but no cigar! :hey_bud:

In Acts 8, Peter and John are sent by the apostles to Samaria. Would they have sent Peter away from Jerusalem if he was the leader of the whole church? Why was he sent instead of the one doing the sending?

 

[Good_Fella]

In the first few hundred years of the church the rock/petra was often interpreted to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ or Christ Himself. Here is a compilation of early quotes regarding Matthew 16:18 and other related quotes. christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

Some are lengthy extracts of a large number of Fathers, and I don’t have the time to explicate them (did you?) to see how they are to be taken into context. So, here is a list of short quotes from several of the more influential Patristic Fathers who William Webster cites. These contradict his argument and what he merely wishes to believe. The Rock isn’t Peter’s faith. The Rock is Peter! The Church is to be built on him, not his faith. Peter’s declaration resulted from a direct revelation from God. It was more than a profession of faith. He didn’t say “I believe you are the Christ” but “You are the Christ”.

Tertullian

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give toyouthe keys, not to the Church”
Modesty21:9–10 [A.D. 220]

Origen

“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …”
In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

St. Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition

**St. Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures”
Homilies*4:1

**St. Hilary of Poitiers **

“Blessed Simon who, after his confession of the Mystery, was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church and received the Keys of the Kingdom.”
De Trinitate, 6:20

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock the Lord promised to build His Church.”
Comment. in Esai. c. ii.

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon, being both called and having become a Rock, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.”
Hom. xv. in C. Cantic).

“Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.”
Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.

**St. John Chrysostom **

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …”
Hom. iii. de Paednit

“Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.”
In illud. hoc Scitote)

St. Ambrose

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?”
The Faith 4:5

**St. Augustine **

“These miserable wretches, refusing to acknowledge the Rock as Peter and to believe that the Church has received the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, have lost these very keys from their own hands.”
Christian Combat

:heaven:

 

[Good_Fella]

Peter was often first. There is no argument about that. But when was he given authority over the other apostles?

And the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon who is called Peter… - Matthew 10, 2

Peter is described as being the first of all the apostles. The Greek adjective for “first” is πρῶτος (protos) which means “first and foremost”, “primary first”, “chief”, “principal”, and “most important”. This word doesn’t function as a chronological indicator. Matthew uses the same word in 20:27: “And whosoever will be chief (πρῶτος) among you, let him be your servant.” [KJV] “And he that will be first (πρῶτος) among you, shall be your servant.” [DRB]. In v.25, Jesus says that ‘the rulers of the Gentiles “exercise lordship over” (κατακυριεύουσιν) their people, and their high officials “exercise authority over” (κατεξουσιάζουσιν) them.’ It’s then that Jesus says “he that shall be first among you, shall be your servant, even as the Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a redemption of many” (27-28). So, what Jesus is saying is that the first in authority (not the highest in honour) must be the first in service like him. Hence, in v.2, Peter is described as the first of the apostles because he is the chief apostle and leader of the Church. Primary authority (not the highest honour) has been conferred on him of all the apostles. The other apostles, too, have authority, but subordinate to Peter’s. He’s the chief.

:heaven:

 

[rcwitness]

When did James and the Apostles acknowledge that Peter had a primacy of authority?

Luke 9
46 An argument started among the disciples as to which of them would be the greatest. 47 Jesus, knowing their thoughts, took a little child and had him stand beside him. 48 Then he said to them, “Whoever welcomes this little child in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me welcomes the one who sent me. For it is the one who is least among you all who is the greatest.”

Luke 22
24 A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 (same event as Luke 9:18-20) that Peter would have authority over the other apostles, why didn’t the apostles who were there at that moment understand this? Why didn’t Jesus remind them?

In Acts 8, Peter and John are sent by the apostles to Samaria. Would they have sent Peter away from Jerusalem if he was the leader of the whole church? Why was he sent instead of the one doing the sending? In Acts 15 when the leaders of the early church gathered to discuss circumcision and Jewish law, James (Jesus’ “brother”) who led the church in Jerusalem was the one who delivered the decision. Peter spoke, but clearly James was the one who gave the authoritative answer.

All of these name changes were significant, but Abraham, Sarah, Israel, and Paul were not given specific authority over others with a reign of successors. What is different about Simon-Peter?

In the first few hundred years of the church the rock/petra was often interpreted to be Peter’s confession of faith in Christ or Christ Himself. Here is a compilation of early quotes regarding Matthew 16:18 and other related quotes. christiantruth.com/articles/fathersmt16.html

Hello susanlo! That is a great link. And you provide a strong case of argument. I have not read all of the quotes in that link of some fathers. It’s rather overwhelming for me to read it all any time soon. Would you be able to take out the related passages that deal with your points? It is hard to address specific concerns with such a large body of writings!

Btw, what about earlier Fathers, such as St. Ignatius and St Irenaeus? They give testimony to Apostolic Succession and a Primacy (supremacy) of the See of Rome, no?

 

[susanlo]

Some are lengthy extracts of a large number of Fathers, and I don’t have the time to explicate them (did you?) to see how they are to be taken into context. So, here is a list of short quotes from several of the more influential Patristic Fathers who William Webster cites. These contradict his argument and what he merely wishes to believe. The Rock isn’t Peter’s faith. The Rock is Peter! The Church is to be built on him, not his faith. Peter’s declaration resulted from a direct revelation from God. It was more than a profession of faith. He didn’t say “I believe you are the Christ” but “You are the Christ”.

I read through many of the quotes, but not all of them. I am unable to find the complete writings for some of the quotes. I find that lists of quotes are helpful leads, but unless you can read the context of what was being written about, it is easy to be deceived.

Tertullian
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give toyouthe keys, not to the Church”
Modesty21:9–10 [A.D. 220]

This is a bit more of the quote:

“If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation;”
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm

Tertullian believed that Peter was given the keys, but he clearly did not believe that they were passed on to successors. Wasn’t this written to the Bishop of Rome (Callistus)? These 2 had a complicated disagreement. I do not think that this quote supports that Tertullian thought that the Bishops of Rome carried on a status of “Rock” or personally had Peter’s keys.

Origen
“See what the Lord said to Peter, that great foundation of the Church, and most solid Rock, upon which Christ founded the Church …”
In Exodus. Hom. v. . 4 tom. ii).

oniehlibraryofgreekliterature.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/235322821-1-origen-homilies-on-genesis-and-exodus.pdf
Page 296 of the PDF – Page 281 of the book.

Origen did think that Peter was the first rock of the church. He did not think this was something that Peter and successive Bishops of Rome had alone. He believed that all Christians after Peter became rocks. I do not see that Origen believed that the Bishops of Rome had any special role above other bishops passed down from Peter.
“And if we too have said like Peter, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, You are Peter, etc. (Matthew 16:18) For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, (1 Corinthians 10:4) and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.”
Origen’s Commentary on Matthew Book XII Chapter 10 - newadvent.org/fathers/101612.htm

1 Peter 2
4 As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.

 

[susanlo]

St. Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was , but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition

This is the edition that is generally accepted by scholars. He clearly shows how the church has a symbolic unity in Peter, but that all apostles had equal honor and power.

“4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one.** Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power**; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Song of Songs 6:9 Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? Ephesians 4:4”
newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

At one point Cyprian gathered 87 bishops in Northern Africa to a council in relation to a disagreement with Bishop of Rome, Stephen. In the council the bishops write that:
“It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

I don’t think Cyprian taught that the Roman Bishop had supremacy over other bishops.
Good Fella;14487310:

**St. Ephraim **

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures”
Homilies*4:1
I am unable to find this quote in its original context. Is this a 4th Homily? I can only find that he wrote 3 homilies/sermons.

In interest of time and space I won’t go through the rest of the quotes on this post. Yes, while most of the early theologians state that the rock/petra was Peter’s faith in Christ, some say that the petra was Peter. However, none state that this role of petra/rock has 1 direct successor in the Bishop of Rome. It is easy to look back in hindsight and see support for what we have come to believe. But when we look at the facts of history alone is there a strong enough case?

 

[susanlo]

Btw, what about earlier Fathers, such as St. Ignatius and St Irenaeus? They give testimony to Apostolic Succession and a Primacy (supremacy) of the See of Rome, no?

I am not aware of Ignatius writing about these topics.

Irenaeus writes about the churches founded by the apostles teaching what the apostles taught. (Unlike the churches founded by those outside of the church). He doesn’t write about a Roman supremacy as far as I am aware.

Do you know of any examples?

 

[rcwitness]

I am not aware of Ignatius writing about these topics.

Irenaeus writes about the churches founded by the apostles teaching what the apostles taught. (Unlike the churches founded by those outside of the church). He doesn’t write about a Roman supremacy as far as I am aware.

Do you know of any examples?

Irenaeus of Lyon, second century bishop, wrote the following:

(Note thatLinuswas the second pope after Peter, Cletus was third, and Clement of Rome was fourth).

1.It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; andwe are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times;*those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,]**by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient,and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of thesuccessions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity thatevery Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority,that is, the faithful everywhere, in as much as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3.*The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric.*This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels.

 

[Good_Fella]

If Jesus meant in Matthew 16 that Peter was to be the first Pope (father) why didn’t he tell the apostles to call only Peter father/teacher/instructor? Why did He say that they are all brothers if Jesus had already announced that Peter would have authority over the others

It wasn’t so much Peter was raised by some distinctive authority over the other apostles, but rather all that was possessed and shared in common among the Twelve were brought together in his person. Jesus appointed Peter to ensure cohesion and a unity of faith, since the Twelve were to be commissioned to preach the Gospel to all nations and found particular churches in different regions. Peter’s principal authority in the college of the apostles was meant to confirm and clarify what was to be taught and practiced to ensure that the Church didn’t commit herself to error while becoming divided. Jesus conferred chief prerogatives on Peter for the sake of safeguarding all that he would reveal to his Church and should be believed and practiced. The equilibrium of Church unity in diversity that should always exist between all the churches the apostles founded and left behind could be guaranteed only if the Petrine office, which was instituted by Christ, were the centre of reference.

The Apostles formed a lasting collegial entity once Jesus instructed them to go out and preach to all nations. The apostolic college couldn’t exist at all if it weren’t one and indivisible in matters of doctrine and discipline. Thus, Jesus appointed Peter to be his representative on earth for the purpose of maintaining unanimity among the apostles and those men whom they ordained to help and succeed them. Peter’s office would be non-sequitur if any of the apostles and the men they ordained felt free to ignore or reject his teachings and instructions. And if any of them did, they would have forfeited their own authority, since Peter was appointed to be Christ’s spokesperson. If any apostle dismissed or rejected what Peter confirmed should be believed or instructed must be practiced in all the particular churches of the different regions, they would have rejected Christ and thereby lost their own authority which had its reference in Peter. Of the Twelve, each apostle who founded a particular church was not only responsible for his own church, but more importantly had an obligation which he shared with all his fellow apostles, and that was toward the whole Church and her apostolic mission. Each apostle was responsible for the whole collegial apostolic body which carried with it the duty of protecting the purity of the faith and the unity of the one Church entrusted to it.

Peter’s role as chief pastor was to ensure that the apostolic college fulfilled its duties and responsibilities. He acted as chief pastor, instructor, and governor. He was, so to speak, the chief elder among elders. Peter’s principal duty as universal shepherd was to ensure the preservation of the bond of harmony and concord, without which the universal Church couldn’t exist in unity. The jurisdiction that was granted to each apostle over their own particular churches and their own flocks to teach, instruct, and discipline concerned and affected all the other churches in the one body of Christ. Peter also had his own flock to attend to in Rome, but he had the added responsibility to watch over the entire flock of the Church which included both the clergy and the laity. As the head of the church at Rome, he exercised his temporal authority, while as head of the entire Church, his universal primacy of authority. He guaranteed that all the churches believed and practiced the same essential things. The word “catholic” means much more than “universal” in the ordinary sense of the word. The word doesn’t simply suggest “the idea of a reality prevalent everywhere” (a body of churches all over the world in Christendom), but rather “an organ whole, of a cohesion, of a firm synthesis, of a reality that is not scattered but, on the contrary, turned toward a centre which assures its unity, whatever the expanse in area or the internal differentiation might be” (Henri de Lubac, Motherhood of the Church). Thus, all the apostles had to work for the common good of all the churches, including Peter. They all had to promote and safeguard the unity of faith and discipline. Along with their pastoral duties in their own particular churches, all the apostles had a common duty to the Church as a whole. This shared duty could be fulfilled only in union with Peter. Without a centre and principal reference regulating the affairs of all the particular churches, the unity of faith couldn’t possibly be preserved.

Jesus expected the apostles to both listen to Peter and inform him of the affairs in their own churches. If they neglected to do this at any time, they would have compromised the ruling principle of their collegiality. The apostles possessed their authority by their share in Peter’s. If any of them had decided to reject what Peter taught and presumed to usurp that universal part of his authority, they couldn’t have known for certain whether their shift in doctrine was true. The Petrine office was instituted by Christ to function as the organ of certainty. Christ endowed Peter with the charism of infallibility so that the whole Church could be absolutely sure that what her members believed and practiced were bound in heaven. By confirming his brothers in the faith, Peter ensured that none of the particular churches would commit the entire Church to error. The Church couldn’t then be “catholic”. The other apostles had equal authority to bind and loose, but only so long as they recognized and abided by Peter’s primacy of authority. They, too, were graced with the charism of infallibility, but insofar they were united with Peter. The final word rested with him.

:heaven: