A Catholic Rejects the Primacy of Peter

[jfoges]

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.

Careful Epistemes, I think you are making a mistake here. The Catholic Church doesn’t claim that the Pope has absolute control over bishops, bishops are still autonomous in the Catholic Church. The role of the Pope is as the pastor and shepherd of the universal Church, and with this role come certain duties. You are the one who is making the Pope out to be more powerful than he is according to Church theology and law.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The Building of Christendom and Cleaving of Christendom are OUTSTANDING books on Church history by Dr. Carroll. I thoroughly enjoyed reading them and am reading through them yet again. Good stuff!

Epistemes;6660766:

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.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Are you referring to his Christendom series? Like I said a moment ago, “Building” and “Cleaving” were both very well-written. They’re written from an extremely pro-papal, pro-catholic point of view. But I’m fine with that. I like reading all sides of the argument. What I like about the books is that they show the papal contributions to fighting heresies that we see the Orthodox in here minimizing day in and day out. Well-written stuff.

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.

 

[Nicea325]

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.

I can provide plenty of sources.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

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 un

conceived 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.

This is very interesting; you want to negate the teachings of Jesus building his Church upon Peter, commanding Peter to feed and tend his flock and for Peter to call all his brethren back to the fold after they lose faith.

Then you want something other to confirm history that Peter and his successors are first among apostles? Which PJM provided some historical Early Church Fathers giving presedence to the Popes in Rome as successor of Peter over the Catholic Church.

I don’t take the EO view here about the Pope as you falsely claim, the EO tend to make the Pope out to be some super human, to which you apparently have fallen for;

The realistic approach which is supported by history, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition is that the Pope Peter’s successors is the protector of the Catholic Faith. Our First Pope Peter is the only Pope to council among Bishops from Acts 15, since then no Pope has ever counciled with the Bishops. So to think that the Pope has superman powers to overrule single Bishops is far from the Truth. Bishops are free to evangelize the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the Bishop deems fit. If the Bishop is in communion with the Pope, it is confirmed that the Bishop will not add to or change the Apostolic faith which the Pope “The Rock” will always be here unitl Jesus returns to guarantee that the Apostolic faith continues to every people, tongue, tribe and nation in every age unchanged.

This developement of doctrine is thrown around here to loosely; it does not give the acurate credence of the Popes who defended the Apostolic doctrines unchanged. In other words as the languages and the culturals of the world changed, the Popes in every age in communion with the Catholic Magisterium defended the Catholic Faith by defining and clarifying the Apostolic faith to new languages, new worlds, mans new ways of thinking such as man came from ape theologies and their is no god as communism teaches.

Grant it that the EO not in communion with Peter and his successors were suppressed by their own governments who allowed them to rule over them. Did nothing in defending the Apostolic Catholic faith against new heretics and heresies. Although many of these EO who opposed their government influences in their Churches were quickly martyred, to these are hereos of the EO Catholic faith.

What needs to be said here from history is not a developement of faith, but a defense of the Apostolic Catholic Faith. Thus Peter’s authority in the Popes never gets contested for a thousand years after Pentecost.

Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Religious History, Secular history disagrees with your point of view and all of these confirm the Pope as Peter’s successor, and first among the apostles of whom Jesus personally gave the keys of the Kingdom to Peter and built his Church upon Peter and placed Peter singularly in the care over his sheep and lambs.

Simply put, the Pope is not a superman as EO “falsely” make him out to be; The Pope is Peter’s successor, who guarantees that the Rock Jesus Built his church upon will never change, and will die defending this Catholic Apostolic faith. What EO would falsely claim as change is not change, but is a defense of the Apostolic faith to new worlds, languages and winds of doctrine that come against this Catholic Apostolic faith.

Do not fall victim to the false presumption of a superman Pope. I assure you he does not exist. The Pope is servant among servants in the garden of the Lord, nothing more, nothing less with Jesus Christ promise to bind and loose in heaven what ever Peter and his successors in the Popes bind and loose on earth. In other words Jesus promised to be with Peter always.

P.S how can one reject the Primacy of Peter if you don’t know what it is? From your EO defintion you totally missed the Catholic’s position on the primacy of Peter.

Peace be with you

 

[Hesychios]

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.

No, that is not an Orthodox argument.

 

[fnr]

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])

Some other useful quotes.

Ignatius of Antioch
Give ye heed to the bishop, that God also may give heed to you. I am devoted to those who are subject to the bishop, the presbyters, the deacons. May it be granted me to have my portion with them in the presence of God. Toil together one with another, struggle together, run together, suffer together, lie down together, rise up together, as God’s stewards and assessors and ministers.

Paul of Tarsus

But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)–those of repute made me add nothing. On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised. Only, we were to be mindful of the poor, which is the very thing I was eager to do. * And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.* For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy. * But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”* (Galatians 2: 6-14) [50-60 A.D.]

Council of Constance
First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members. [1414-1418 A.D.]

[Though some claim the Council of Constance is not legitimately binding on papal authority, its teachings were granted dogmatic status in dismissing on of the contenders to the papacy during the Western Schism – the Catholic Encyclopedia lists it – awkwardly obendiently as a “(partly) ecumenical council”]

 

[josie_L]

Are you referring to his Christendom series? Like I said a moment ago, “Building” and “Cleaving” were both very well-written. They’re written from an extremely pro-papal, pro-catholic point of view. But I’m fine with that. I like reading all sides of the argument. What I like about the books is that they show the papal contributions to fighting heresies that we see the Orthodox in here minimizing day in and day out. Well-written stuff.

Yes, I am referring to the Christendom series, albeit I would not call Mr. Carroll extremely pro-papal (or am I missing something that I have yet to read in volume three), i.e., he was more than willing to admit the failures/weaknesses of past popes (without denouncing the office itself).

p.s. I agree with your comment about the Orthodox (at CAF) however.

 

[mandateman]

Almost all thinking in the Catholic Church has developed over the centuries. This includes prayers, devotions and the mysteries of the Sacraments. The reason that all thinking in the church has developed is that the church is not an organization but a living organism the Mystical Body of Christ that itself is reliving in a mystical way the entire life of Christ over the centuries as well as growing and maturing through the revelations of the saints the development of our gospels and defence of the faith by our early fathers as well as new insight brought to the church by its saints.

The primacy of Peter is fact today and it is only today in which we live and for which we will be judged. You and I will not be judged for what the early christians understood but only what our church teaches that we must accept today under pain of sin or heresy.

If we were to lose the papacy the Catholic Church would end ipso facto. If the Catholic Church would end then Salvation for all men would end.

I myself dont expect the papacy and the Church to end for the next 35-45 years. I use those figures because I believe that the next pope is the last pope. No pope but Peter has reigned for 33 years. Those members who are active until the end of the reign of the next pope will take part in the Ascension of the Church which everyone believes means the end of the world.

I think we should be concentrating on becoming Holy and helping the blind to see, the deaf to hear and the lame to walk by our example as holy catholic people. There is very little time to worry about these things.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

I’m confused here. You believe the world is going to end soon?

 

[josie_L]

Some other useful quotes.

. . . Council of Constance

First it declares that, legitimately assembled in the holy Spirit, constituting a general council and representing the catholic church militant, it has power immediately from Christ; and that everyone of whatever state or dignity, even papal, is bound to obey it in those matters which pertain to the faith, the eradication of the said schism and the general reform of the said church of God in head and members. [1414-1418 A.D.]

[Though some claim the Council of Constance is not legitimately binding on papal authority, its teachings were granted dogmatic status in dismissing on of the contenders to the papacy during the Western Schism – the Catholic Encyclopedia lists it – awkwardly obendiently as a “(partly) ecumenical council”]

Nothing of which you stated in your post undermines the papacy, anyways, here are a few more quotes (which just scratches the surface) underlining the primacy of Rome:

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828 a.d.):

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Roman pontiffs) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 (Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30)

Theodore the Studite (759-826 a.d.)

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter” (Theodore of Studite, Bk. II Ep. 63, Patr. Graec. 99, 1281)

Peter of Chrysologus (c. A.D. 400-450)

“We exhort you in every respect, honourable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome.”

Flavian (Patriarch of Constantinople, d. A.D. 449) - to Pope Leo I

“The whole question needs only your single decision and all will be settled in peace and quietness. Your sacred letter will with God’s help completely suppress the heresy which has arisen and the disturbance which it has caused; and so the convening of a council which is in any case difficult will be rendered superfluous.”

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

Here are more quotes: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6467366#post6467366 (start with post #159)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

That quote by Flavian in the middle of your post is pretty powerful evidence of the Catholic position on the papacy. Nice.

Nothing of which you stated in your post undermines the papacy, anyways, here are a few more quotes (which just scratches the surface) underlining the primacy of Rome:

Here are more quotes: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6467366#post6467366 (start with post #159)

 

[Berean2]

(@ OP) And how about this, as well?

One of the greatest arguments against the primacy of Peter is the fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves as to which of them should be the greatest. Luke 22:24-26 says, “Now there arose a dispute among them, which of them was reputed to be the greatest. But he said to them, ‘The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them, and they who exercise authority over them are called Benefactors. But not so with you. On the contrary, let him who is greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is chief as the servant’.” The very fact that the apostles had an argument among themselves shows they did not understand that Peter was to be prince. Also, the occasion of the argument was the night of the betrayal–the last night of the Lord’s earthly ministry–and yet the apostles still did not understand that Christ had given Peter a position of primacy. The Lord settled the argument, not by stating that He had already made Peter head, but by declaring that the Gentiles have their heads, “But not so with you.” Thus, Jesus very plainly taught that no one would occupy any such place as a Benefactor (or Pope) to exercise authority over the others. (source)—emphases mine

 

[fnr]

No doubt the See of Rome is shown primacy in the early Church. However, the notion of “primacy” has evolved over time toward gradually more authoritarian and monarchist interpretation, largely pushed by popes and centuries of curia.

Ignatius of Antioch clearly urges the primacy of Rome, as do many of the very earliest of references to it, highlighting its foundation by Peter and Paul.

The quote I referenced earlier from Galatians 2 strongly suggest that Paul interpreted his authority as parallel to, not in series behind Peter.

And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter to the circumcised, for the one who worked in Peter for an apostolate to the circumcised worked also in me for the Gentiles, and when they recognized the grace bestowed upon me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas their right hands in partnership, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

There is plenty of evidence supporting Roman primacy, but it’s not apparent that its primacy stems from Matthew 16. That quotation wasn’t used historically to support Roman primacy until later.

The nature of Rome as center of the Church is rooted in Peter and Paul both having died in Rome.​

 

[Epistemes]

I find this (out of context?) barage of quotes by historical figures to be remarkably superfluous. While it’s true that I’ve not read the works from the ante-Nicene Fathers through John Damascene, I can, at least say that I own all of those works and am not ignorant of their words concerning the papacy. While I am no Johannes Quasten or Jaroslav Pelikan, I think these two historians by their very lives easily point to the ambiguous nature of interpretation, as can Timothy Ware or Henry Chadwick. In all truthfulness, a reading of Raymond Brown’s “The Churches the Apostles Left Behind” delivers a message throughout that is strongly ecumenical with the implication that no single understanding of the church can be definitive.

 

[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, you have a good question. Latter-day Saints and Catholics have very similar views of the importance of Peter and his calling as head of the Church after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. The importance of Apostolic succession is also held mutually in great importance; however, the actual term AC is not used in the LDS Church. We generally refer to it as the passing of Priesthood Keys.

The Apostasy in the doctrine of the LDS Church was a loss of the keys at some point between Peter and the First Council of Nicaea. The LDS Church does not define an exact date, just a range.

LDS firmly believe that the transfer of the Priesthood Keys or Apostolic Succession is necessary. Without the keys upon the earth the priesthood could not be passed upon. In fact (I am using broad strokes and skipping some addiitional information, but the result is the same), LDS would say that only one individual actively holds the keys at any one time. Without that individual no one can be ordained to the priesthood. Eventually, all who held the priesthood dies, without being able to pass on the priesthood.

You are able to bring peace with your questions. Thank you. I am grateful for your example; it is important.

 

[CDNowak]

I find this (out of context?) barage of quotes by historical figures to be remarkably superfluous. While it’s true that I’ve not read the works from the ante-Nicene Fathers through John Damascene, I can, at least say that I own all of those works and am not ignorant of their words concerning the papacy. While I am no Johannes Quasten or Jaroslav Pelikan, I think these two historians by their very lives easily point to the ambiguous nature of interpretation, as can Timothy Ware or Henry Chadwick. In all truthfulness, a reading of Raymond Brown’s “The Churches the Apostles Left Behind” delivers a message throughout that is strongly ecumenical with the implication that no single understanding of the church can be definitive.

So you dismiss the most immediate sources available, without having read them, for modern writers? Is there any point trying to discuss this or are you just trolling?

 

[seamusmohr]

Nothing of which you stated in your post undermines the papacy, anyways, here are a few more quotes (which just scratches the surface) underlining the primacy of Rome:

Please show where the mantle of S. Peter falls upon the papacy? There is nothing in scripture or history, the popes gained their authority from the state via the emperors!
Or from the Church through the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Our colleague quoting Constance was not too far out!

We have to realise that quotes after 300 AD are not really valid, neither quotes from the papacy, we should be shown what the fathers of the first three centuries thought!

Here are more quotes: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6467366#post6467366 (start with post #159)

 

[Nicea325]

Please show where the mantle of S. Peter falls upon the papacy? There is nothing in scripture or history, the popes gained their authority from the state via the emperors!
Or from the Church through the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Our colleague quoting Constance was not too far out!

We have to realise that quotes after 300 AD are not really valid, neither quotes from the papacy, we should be shown what the fathers of the first three centuries thought!

Here are more quotes: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=6467366#post6467366 (start with post #159)

Not true! Tell me which emperor gave St.Victor (2nd century) his authority?

 

[Metamorphoo]

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)?

I am not Eastern Orthodox, but this is how I understand the difference. (I am sure Orthodox will correct me if I am mistaken!)

To use secular business terminology, it would be the difference between a person who is the chairman of the board vs. the board itself. It is the board that actually makes major decisions affecting a company, not the chairman alone; yet the chairman does provide leadership to the board. I think we all could see that there is someone who needs to preside over board meetings, be the official “face” of the company before the public, etc. I think that this type of concept is what the Orthodox mean by the “first among equals” idea. Certainly the board chairman holds a position of influence among the board members. I hardly think that the position of Board Chairman is defunct of any real meaning.

Within the RCC, the Magisterium–to the best of my knowledge–does not have the authority to overrule the Pope when there is a conflict between the two parties. Catholics (even the Magisterium) are expected to submit to the Pope–period. I could be wrong, but I think that in Eastern Orthodoxy, this would not be the case.