A Catholic Rejects the Primacy of Peter

[Epistemes]

It seems to me that history speaks voumes about the primacy of Peter: if the apostle was regarded as being universally primary and as Christ’s sole vicar then there wouldn’t be so much fuss. The fuss, it seems, is due to an encroachment upon previously unconceived notions about Peter’s role. There needs to be no exegesis of Scripture but a simple look at the history of the early Church itself which bespeaks of a variety of churches, a variety of communities, and various liturgical preferences with no apostle greater than the others.

As the church in the West continued to evolve, the primacy of Peter was exagerrated and the heightened role of the papacy created separate from the other bishops. That’s all the primacy of Peter amounts to: an exagerration offered by the Western Church in light of a divided empire.

Yes, I understand schism quite clearly now.

 

[CDNowak]

Looking at the Early Church Fathers, the Bishop of Rome, as successor to Peter, is given a primacy of honor at least.

There is a difference between the current view (not held by the Popes, btw) that the Pope **necessarily **has universal and immediate jurisdiction and the pre-schism understanding of the papacy. Both JPII and Benedict XVI have stated that, as the understanding of the papacy developed, it can be discussed what the precise role of the papacy ought to be. Indeed this will be the primary matter in any future doctrinal discussion with the Orthodox.

 

[JohnT58]

So what formula would you use to define the role of the Papacy vis a vis Orthodoxy?
1 among equals, with an honorary title of Pope. (defunct of any real meaning)?

 

[Scoobyshme]

Sometimes it helps to see the bigger picture.

All throughout the Old Testament, God usually worked through one main person. Abraham, Isaac, Moses, etc. Jesus continued that approach by giving Peter the “keys” to the kingdom. The keys, back in those days, referred to a dynastic office (means it would have successors), that was second in charge of “the kingdom” when “the king” was unavailable (out of town, sick, at war, etc.). This person was recognized easily because he carried a big key over his shoulder as a sign of his office. Whatever he “loosed or bound” (judged) was upheld by the king upon his return. Jesus created a parallel to this principle by giving Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” because He was leaving to return to heaven (the Ascension).

We even see a group of Greeks, in the first century, before St. John died, traveled all the way to Rome to speak to the bishop of Rome (Peter’s successor) rather than talk to St. John, who was in a nearby Greek town, to settle a theological dispute.

As the Church has grown, the role of the Pope has adapted somewhat, although his level of authority has not. He is still “second in command” over the “kingdom.”

Note, too, that whenever all the Apostles are listed in Scripture, Peter is always first and Judas is always last. That’s not a coincidence.

You may enjoy listening to some .mp3 talks by Patrick Madrid on “Pope Fiction” (erroneous “myths” about the office of Pope) at the following website:

alabamacatholicresources.com/pope_fiction.html

 

[barnesms]

There are so many ways to interpret history. What is clear is that during the life of Jesus, Peter held a special place. After the resurrection of Jesus, Peter continued to hold a special place in the eyes of the other apostles. Even Paul recognized the primacy of the apostles and of Peter by his desire to go there to be taught.

The role Peter played was the head of the Church; an emulation of the role that Jesus played, a role he was called to play by Jesus. Without a head doctrine quickly becomes muddled and men quickly begin to choose specific teachings to emphasize and then they are found completely outside of orthodox teaching.

The role of Peter as head of the Church is hardly an exaggeration, but it continues the example set by Jesus Christ.

 

[PJM]

Friend is that that you don’t know history or wish to rewrite it

The Early Church Fathers understood from the beginning that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church.

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110])
.
Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

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 to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

… 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 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

[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 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]). Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com

 

[Epistemes]

So what formula would you use to define the role of the Papacy vis a vis Orthodoxy?
1 among equals, with an honorary title of Pope. (defunct of any real meaning)?

No, not one (and definitely not first) among equals. It is obvious that as the papacy has developed so to has our (that is, the Catholic Church’s) expectations of the role and vice versa. I don’t think the Bishop of Rome to be on the same par as the bishops of Moscow, Antioch, etc., yet I do not think the Bishop of Rome to be primary (with due, exclusionary obeisance) among all bishops. I think history has shown the Pope to be the Western Ecumenical Patriarch.

 

[Mark77]

No, not one (and definitely not first) among equals. It is obvious that as the papacy has developed so to has our (that is, the Catholic Church’s) expectations of the role and vice versa. I don’t think the Bishop of Rome to be on the same par as the bishops of Moscow, Antioch, etc., yet I do not think the Bishop of Rome to be primary (with due, exclusionary obeisance) among all bishops. I think history has shown the Pope to be the Western Ecumenical Patriarch.

**What you & i “think” is sadly irrelevant & so often completely incorrect!

We often want to “think” like so many “brilliant, well educated, intellectual modern theologians” who “think” Jesus never really lived or was just a wise man or a prophet!

Please reread the post by PJM & open your mind to the Truth of Jesus Christ, not the false theories of men who “think” that the Papacy “developed!”**

Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus, nunc et in hora Mortis Nostrae!

mark

 

[Nicea325]

No, not one (and definitely not first) among equals. It is obvious that as the papacy has developed so to has our (that is, the Catholic Church’s) expectations of the role and vice versa. I don’t think the Bishop of Rome to be on the same par as the bishops of Moscow, Antioch, etc., yet I do not think the Bishop of Rome to be primary (with due, exclusionary obeisance) among all bishops. I think history has shown the Pope to be the Western Ecumenical Patriarch.

Well has the ENTIRE church developed? Why wouldn’t it? Isn’t the church a living organism? The fact Jesus said: Go and preach to ALL nations would indicate He wanted His church to grow and not remain an underground faith/religion.

The problem I see is that many forget is that we have 2,000 years of history behind us to see the bigger picture as oppose to Christians living only a few hundred years after Christ death. Of course those early christians did not have the comprehension or knowledge we possess today about the development of the papacy,either historically or theologically.

 

[CDNowak]

No, not one (and definitely not first) among equals. It is obvious that as the papacy has developed so to has our (that is, the Catholic Church’s) expectations of the role and vice versa. I don’t think the Bishop of Rome to be on the same par as the bishops of Moscow, Antioch, etc., yet I do not think the Bishop of Rome to be primary (with due, exclusionary obeisance) among all bishops. I think history has shown the Pope to be the Western Ecumenical Patriarch.

I’m confused. You don’t think the Pope is on par with the Patriarchs (which necessitates either higher or lower precedence). Yet you think the Pope is/ought-to-be the Western Patriarch?

You say he is not one among equals, nor first among equals, does that mean you think the Papacy is lower than other bishops or patriarchs?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

As long as the authority of Pope as, at the very least, the sucessor of Peter is recognized (in other words, as long as Eastern Churches are in full communion with Rome) I actually find this to be a minor issue. It’s with Orthodox, as in, those Christians in the East who split from the Catholic Church, that this is a real issue. But Eastern Catholics are still Catholic.

 

[Nicea325]

As long as the authority of Pope as, at the very least, the sucessor of Peter is recognized (in other words, as long as Eastern Churches are in full communion with Rome) I actually find this to be a minor issue. It’s with Orthodox, as in, those Christians in the East who split from the Catholic Church, that this is a real issue. But Eastern Catholics are still Catholic.

The Orthodox Church due to the split is the church who rejects any primacy. However,what I do not comprehend how they can flat out reject and deny historical evidence from many eastern bishops confirming the primacy of Rome? I guess denials can run more than skin deep.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

The Orthodox Church due to the split is the church who rejects any primacy. However,what I do not comprehend how they can flat out reject and deny historical evidence from many eastern bishops confirming the primacy of Rome? I guess denials can run more than skin deep.

I’ve always understood that they believed in some sort of “corruption”, meaning that they believed that for whatever reason the sucessorship of Peter became disputed. Maybe I’m understanding wrong, though, I’ve done virtually no study into the subject.

 

[mark_a]

1 among equals, with an honorary title of Pope. (defunct of any real meaning)?

That pretty much says it all, doesn’t it?

I wonder which other institutions have their leadership roles defined this way?

 

[adrift]

There needs to be no exegesis of Scripture but a simple look at the history of the early Church itself which bespeaks of a variety of churches, a variety of communities, and various liturgical preferences with no apostle greater than the others.

QUOTE]

I am reading Church History series by Warren Carroll which is at odds with your statement. He thoroughly documents the primacy of the Pope from Peter until at least the 6th century that is where have read to.

 

[SteveVH]

There are so many ways to interpret history. What is clear is that during the life of Jesus, Peter held a special place. After the resurrection of Jesus, Peter continued to hold a special place in the eyes of the other apostles. Even Paul recognized the primacy of the apostles and of Peter by his desire to go there to be taught.

The role Peter played was the head of the Church; an emulation of the role that Jesus played, a role he was called to play by Jesus. Without a head doctrine quickly becomes muddled and men quickly begin to choose specific teachings to emphasize and then they are found completely outside of orthodox teaching.

The role of Peter as head of the Church is hardly an exaggeration, but it continues the example set by Jesus Christ.

Not to get off topic here, but your comments seem very interesting coming from a Mormon from the standpoint of apostolic succession vs. the loss of priestly authority claimed by the LDS. The Church has never been without a head by the very fact of apostolic succession which has been documented from the beginning. Can you please explain from a Mormon perspective?

Thanks

 

[josie_L]

I am reading Church History series by Warren Carroll which is at odds with your statement. He thoroughly documents the primacy of the Pope from Peter until at least the 6th century that is where have read to.

I too am reading Warren Carroll, i.e., I’m almost finished reading the second volume of his series, can’t wait to read the third book.

 

[barnesms]

Not to get off topic here, but your comments seem very interesting coming from a Mormon from the standpoint of apostolic succession vs. the loss of priestly authority claimed by the LDS. The Church has never been without a head by the very fact of apostolic succession which has been documented from the beginning. Can you please explain from a Mormon perspective?

Thanks

Steve, thank you for your kind question. On this topic, the primacy of Peter, the LDS perspective and the Catholic perspective is identical. Both churches feel very strongly about the truth of this doctrine of Peter’s primacy.

Where there is a difference is the permanence of Apostolic succession. I hope not to be too bold in summarizing the Catholic Church’s position as a continuous line in the transfer of the keys of the kingdom down through all the Roman Pontiffs.

LDS believe at some point between Peter and the first Council of Nicaea the keys were lost; this is the fundamental meaning of the Great Apostasy for LDS. Apostasy does not equate to an absence of truth or an absence of the Spirit, but rather an absence of authority to act in God’s name.

I hope I have answered your question. Briefly, in so many ways LDS relate much more easily to Catholicism than to any Protestant denomination. There is so much where we see doctrines in common or a likeness that is comfortable to us.

 

[Monica4316]

Please read this article
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp

 

[SteveVH]

Steve, thank you for your kind question. On this topic, the primacy of Peter, the LDS perspective and the Catholic perspective is identical. Both churches feel very strongly about the truth of this doctrine of Peter’s primacy.

Where there is a difference is the permanence of Apostolic succession. I hope not to be too bold in summarizing the Catholic Church’s position as a continuous line in the transfer of the keys of the kingdom down through all the Roman Pontiffs.

LDS believe at some point between Peter and the first Council of Nicaea the keys were lost; this is the fundamental meaning of the Great Apostasy for LDS. Apostasy does not equate to an absence of truth or an absence of the Spirit, but rather an absence of authority to act in God’s name.

I hope I have answered your question. Briefly, in so many ways LDS relate much more easily to Catholicism than to any Protestant denomination. There is so much where we see doctrines in common or a likeness that is comfortable to us.

You have answerd my question. Thanks. Just seems strange to me that since it was Jesus who gave that authority, for the benefit of his Church, why would he remove it from his Church, especially when he said “And behold, I am with you always until the end of the age.” (Mt 28:20) We believe the “end of the age” is Christ’s second coming. With your interpretation the “end of the age” would have to be the death of the last apostle. If that was the case it seems he could have said “I am with you always for the next 50-60 years”. That wouldn’t make a lot of sense.

If I give authority to one of my employees, they retain that authority unless I remove it, they don’t just lose it without my involvement. For the Church to lose its authority to act in God’s name, almost immediately after it was founded, or rather to have that authority taken away from his own Church seems a little odd and doesn’t carry a lot of credibility in my opinion, but I appreciate your honest answer.

God bless.