A Catholic Rejects the Primacy of Peter

[Epistemes]

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?

Pardon me, I meant to say that I have not read **all **of the works but that I’m not ignorant of what they say.

Regardless, as I’ve already stated, and more to the point of my last post which has yet to be addressed, the ambiguity of interpretation is such that a person will always be right in his/her own mind and their like-minded cohorts. Apologetics is a game of semantics and interpretation.

 

[seamusmohr]

Nicea325:

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

Victor’s ,‘authority,’ came from the Church, through his membership of the Episcopal College.
You still haven’t shown how the Mantle of S.Peter managed to find purchase on the shoulders of the papacy!

 

[CDNowak]

Regardless, as I’ve already stated, and more to the point of my last post which has yet to be addressed, the ambiguity of interpretation is such that a person will always be right in his/her own mind and their like-minded cohorts. ** Apologetics is a game of semantics and interpretation**.

Then the debate needs to be around the interpretation of the primary sources, not excluding them.

Petrine Primacy is unchallengeable. Roman primacy (in some form or fashion) as far as I can tell is a historical fact (see the quotes from before 300 AD already posted). Am I missing something in interpreting these as supportive of Roman primacy (and linking it to Petrine Primacy)?

 

[Nicea325]

Victor’s ,‘authority,’ came from the Church, through his membership of the Episcopal College.
You still haven’t shown how the Mantle of S.Peter managed to find purchase on the shoulders of the papacy!

Wrong! Victor’s authority came from Peter who received it from Jesus. Should I provide scriptural evidence of Peter’s primacy? If Jesus’ received authority from His Father,then he passed His authority on to His Apostles. The bishopric is an office and like all offices,a successor is needed.

Show me the overwhelming historical evidence from the early church stating or declaring primacy by one bishop or See is a heresy,schism or usurpation of Christ? That is what you have not provided!

 

[Nicea325]

Then the debate needs to be around the interpretation of the primary sources, not excluding them.

Petrine Primacy is unchallengeable. Roman primacy (in some form or fashion) as far as I can tell is a historical fact (see the quotes from before 300 AD already posted). Am I missing something in interpreting these as supportive of Roman primacy (and linking it to Petrine Primacy)?

Exactly! Problem is that opponents simply do not like what they read. It puts a dent on their "johnny-come-lately’ traditions.

 

[CDNowak]

Exactly! Problem is that opponents simply do not like what they read. It puts a dent on their "johnny-come-lately’ traditions.

He has a valid point as to interpretation, but we can’t get to the meaning of primacy without first establishing primacy, we means hashing out the meaning of the passages quoted (ie, we need to do more than proof text).

 

[Nicea325]

He has a valid point as to interpretation, but we can’t get to the meaning of primacy without first establishing primacy, we means hashing out the meaning of the passages quoted (ie, we need to do more than proof text).

Yes he has a valid point,but if that position is the ‘correct’ interpretation historically,then the early church fathers would have wrote extensively or exhaustively againt any such primacy. Where are the writings rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus? The evidence supporting the primacy outweighs the belief it never existed or was false.

 

[Epistemes]

Then the debate needs to be around the interpretation of the primary sources, not excluding them.

Petrine Primacy is unchallengeable. Roman primacy (in some form or fashion) as far as I can tell is a historical fact (see the quotes from before 300 AD already posted). Am I missing something in interpreting these as supportive of Roman primacy (and linking it to Petrine Primacy)?

It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop. The first to likely appeal to such an interpretation was, in fact, Pope Stephen I, nearly two centuries removed from the apostles. Beyond this, even Catholic theologians concede that there is no earlier, reliable historical testimony that is known.

While it is true that Fathers like Origen referred to Peter as “the solid foundation on which Christ built his Church,” or as the head of the apostolic college, when commenting on Matthew 16:18-19, know by us Catholics as the “Petrine text,” he centered his attention on the moral application suitable for *every *Christian. Likewise, the quote from Tertullian is probably the first to reference the text of Matthew 16:18-19 as supporting Petrine primacy, nearly two centuries later. Tertullian does not record that his interpretation is one based on tradition. Prior to Tertullian, this exegesis of the passage from Matthew’s Gospel was never invoked by any of the other Fathers.

 

[Epistemes]

Yes he has a valid point,but if that position is the ‘correct’ interpretation historically,then the early church fathers would have wrote extensively or exhaustively againt any such primacy. Where are the writings rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus? The evidence supporting the primacy outweighs the belief it never existed or was false.

Why must it be black and white? If we understand Chalcedon correctly, specifically Canon 28, agreed upon by the bishops, all who were still in direct communion with Rome, we learn that Rome was granted privileges due to its historicity but that Constantinople, considered the New Rome, would from henceforth enjoy “equal privileges with the old imperial Rome” and “should likewise receive equal rank in matters ecclesiastical.” Thus, it can be easily interpreted that, by Council decree (and let him be anathema), the Fathers at Chalcedon denied papal primacy to be of divine institution; rather, any primacy which Rome enjoyed was due simply to ecclesiastical arrangement.

 

[CDNowak]

It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop. The first to likely appeal to such an interpretation was, in fact, Pope Stephen I, nearly two centuries removed from the apostles. Beyond this, even Catholic theologians concede that there is no earlier, reliable historical testimony that is known.

If it can be proven, please do so. However, keep in mind that there are sources cited (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian in particular) that pre-date Stephen (going back to less than 100 years after the death of John).

Further, I would assert that you have to prove that a contradictory theory was held prior to 190 AD, if we are judging solely on proximity to the Apostles, otherwise that such a theory was widely held prior to 300 AD. (In other words: “Where are the writings rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus?”)

As to Chalcedon (~351 years after the death of John), if you wish to argue from history, then we should note that the elevation of Constantinople was a novelty (and a disputed one) {the appealing to the canon not endorsed by Rome begs the question}.

 

[Nicea325]

It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop. The first to likely appeal to such an interpretation was, in fact, Pope Stephen I, nearly two centuries removed from the apostles. Beyond this, even Catholic theologians concede that there is no earlier, reliable historical testimony that is known.

While it is true that Fathers like Origen referred to Peter as “the solid foundation on which Christ built his Church,” or as the head of the apostolic college, when commenting on Matthew 16:18-19, know by us Catholics as the “Petrine text,” he centered his attention on the moral application suitable for *every *Christian. Likewise, the quote from Tertullian is probably the first to reference the text of Matthew 16:18-19 as supporting Petrine primacy, nearly two centuries later. Tertullian does not record that his interpretation is one based on tradition. Prior to Tertullian, this exegesis of the passage from Matthew’s Gospel was never invoked by any of the other Fathers.

It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop.

Then where are the writings rebuking it as false or a schism or heresy? Better yet a usurpation of Christ teachings? Hence, since it was Rome alone who came up with the notion of primacy due to Matt 16?

Jesus said two important things to Peter “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). It is Peter ALONE who Christ singled out for the authority,which provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the other apostles were given similar power Matt.18:18.

Furthermore, Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

 

[Nicea325]

*Quote:
Originally Posted by Epistemes
It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop. The first to likely appeal to such an interpretation was, in fact, Pope Stephen I, nearly two centuries removed from the apostles. Beyond this, even Catholic theologians concede that there is no earlier, reliable historical testimony that is known. *

**If it can be proven, please do so. However, keep in mind that there are sources cited (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian in particular) that pre-date Stephen (going back to less than 100 years after the death of John).

Further, I would assert that you have to prove that a contradictory theory was held prior to 190 AD, if we are judging solely on proximity to the Apostles, otherwise that such a theory was widely held prior to 300 AD. (In other words: “Where are the writings rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus?”)**

Exactly! That is my counter-argument. Where are the writings supporting their existed another favorable theory? Where are the writings prior to 300 A.D. rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus?

**As to Chalcedon (~351 years after the death of John), if you wish to argue from history, then we should note that the elevation of Constantinople was a novelty (and a disputed one) {the appealing to the canon not endorsed by Rome begs the question}. **

Yep! Because I made the same argument with an Anglican. Constantinople elevated itself,which was not appealing to Rome and not endorsed,because there already existed a much older See: Alexandria

 

[Epistemes]

If it can be proven, please do so. However, keep in mind that there are sources cited (Irenaeus, Clement, and Tertullian in particular) that pre-date Stephen (going back to less than 100 years after the death of John).

Further, I would assert that you have to prove that a contradictory theory was held prior to 190 AD, if we are judging solely on proximity to the Apostles, otherwise that such a theory was widely held prior to 300 AD. (In other words: “Where are the writings rebuking the primacy stating its a heresy,schism or usurpation of Jesus?”)

As to Chalcedon (~351 years after the death of John), if you wish to argue from history, then we should note that the elevation of Constantinople was a novelty (and a disputed one) {the appealing to the canon not endorsed by Rome begs the question}.

I will not provide a contradictory theory since history does support one; rather, as has already been stated above, and as the Fathers attest, Rome moved incrementally to view itself as inheriting Peter’s special charism of responsibility, concern, and right of appeal for the entire Church. Indeed, she was the first of the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). By Leo’s time, the pope was the princeps of the entire church. Yes, even the Church of the East recognized the papacy as having special privileges, and yes, it was to Rome that the East turned when the harmony of the Church was threatened. This is all attested in the primary sources which you wish to address. Those have now been addressed. Again, though, these privileges bestowed upon Rome were of an ecclesiastical, not divine, right.

However, in the period of the Ecumenical Councils the West understood papal tomes as the faith of the Church as the apostle Peter first proclaimed it and therefore as the dominant, decisive word in council deliberations. [The other bishops, *in Rome’s view, had the secondary, though important, role of guaranteeing the presence of the Holy Spirit by their ratification of Rome’s direction.] The East, on the other hand, viewed papal primacy differently, as a prestige of honor and moral authority, but not a primacy of jurisdiction. Papal primacy was valid only when it worked in communion with the council and at the service of the Church, which is why canon 28 was agreed upon by the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople. As no council prior to Chalcedon sanctioned the vote of Rome as being exclusive canon 28 is a legitimate law.

 

[Epistemes]

It can be shown historically that it was only in Rome itself that an interpretation developed which linked Petrine primacy to a continuing pastoral office in the Church exercised by the Roman bishop.

Then where are the writings rebuking it as false or a schism or heresy? Better yet a usurpation of Christ teachings? Hence, since it was Rome alone who came up with the notion of primacy due to Matt 16?

Jesus said two important things to Peter “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19). It is Peter ALONE who Christ singled out for the authority,which provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the other apostles were given similar power Matt.18:18.

Furthermore, Peter alone was promised something else also: “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Please see post #48, paragraph 2.

 

[dcointin]

I am convert to Orthodoxy from Lutheranism, and this is how I view the matter.

Among the apostles, three appear to be the most prominent, Peter, James, and John (Galatians 2:9), and of those Peter seems to be the spokesman (Acts 1:15, 15:7). I see no clear evidence that Peter possessed any authority which was not common to all the apostles.
The passage most often cited in favor of Peter’s primacy is Matthew 16:18 where Christ renames Simon as Peter and says that on this rock he will build his church (Matthew 16:18). I consider it much more likely that the rock to which he refers is the confession of Peter, i.e. that Christ is the messiah, the son of the living God, rather than the person of Peter, given that Peter later denies him three times. He then gives Peter the keys of the kingdom (Matthew 16:18), but he gave the same keys to the other apostles as well (Matthew 18:18). A second passage often cited is John 21:15-17 where Christ tells Peter to feed his lambs and sheep, but this is a reinstatement of Peter’s apostleship after denying Christ, not the giving of a special authority. I further do not see how, even if Peter were given a special authority, that this authority would necessarily pass to the bishop of Rome. Bishops are not apostles; they are the successors of the apostles, but possess a different office.

In the early history of the Church, the bishop of Rome is considered prominent, perhaps even the first among equals, but does not seem to clearly exercise any authority different from that of another bishop. He was highly regarded because the church of Rome was founded by Peter and Paul, who were also martyred there, and because Rome was the capital and largest city of the Roman Empire. His opinion was highly regarded and often sought, but not considered necessary for the promulgation of dogma at council; the approval of the pope was not sought for the calling of Ecumenical Councils, and he usually did not directly participate in them. Further, if his authority were universally recognized from the earliest times, why was it denied by the East and did it become such a subject of contention? The Catholic focus on the papacy seems to completely dominate its ecclesiology, and I often get the impression that other bishops have no authority as such, only as representatives of the Pope who exist to help him administer the Church. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic church states: “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered” (Emphasis mine). If the pope has always exercised such authority, then why did the Church bother to call councils at all, since the opinion of the Pope would have been sufficient to answer any dispute? I think that the incredible papal abuses of the Middle Ages were a direct consequence of this view, as was the schism with the Eastern and Reformation churches which could not conscience it.

This is the primary reason that I chose the Orthodox over the Catholic Church.

 

[Nicea325]

Please see post #48, paragraph 2.

Okay…and? Did nothing of the sort to rebuke an early belief. I’ll ask you again,where are the writings prior to or after 300 A.D. supporting your position? Where do ANY church fathers clearly rebuke the primacy as being false?

Sources please…

 

[SirThomasMore]

Peter was the Apostle to whom Jesus always turned. It was Peter Jesus said to feed his sheep. Peter spoke for the Apostles on Pentecost and performed the first miracle. Peter led the meetings. Peter is mentioned in the NT more than all the other Apostles combined.

Seems to indicate Primacy…

 

[Nicea325]

I will not provide a contradictory theory since history does support one; rather, as has already been stated above, and as the Fathers attest, Rome moved incrementally to view itself as inheriting Peter’s special charism of responsibility, concern, and right of appeal for the entire Church. Indeed, she was the first of the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). By Leo’s time, the pope was the princeps of the entire church. Yes, even the Church of the East recognized the papacy as having special privileges, and yes, it was to Rome that the East turned when the harmony of the Church was threatened. This is all attested in the primary sources which you wish to address. Those have now been addressed. Again, though, these privileges bestowed upon Rome were of an ecclesiastical, not divine, right.

However, in the period of the Ecumenical Councils the West understood papal tomes as the faith of the Church as the apostle Peter first proclaimed it and therefore as the dominant, decisive word in council deliberations. [The other bishops, *in Rome’s view

, had the secondary, though important, role of guaranteeing the presence of the Holy Spirit by their ratification of Rome’s direction.] The East, on the other hand, viewed papal primacy differently, as a prestige of honor and moral authority, but not a primacy of jurisdiction. Papal primacy was valid only when it worked in communion with the council and at the service of the Church, which is why canon 28 was agreed upon by the bishops of Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Constantinople. As no council prior to Chalcedon sanctioned the vote of Rome as being exclusive canon 28 is a legitimate law.

Again, though, these privileges bestowed upon Rome were of an ecclesiastical, not divine, right

Tell me the name of the council(s) or synod(s) (30 A.D. -300 A.D.) ] prior to any ecumenical council (325 A.D.) which bestowed these privileges to Rome?

Not divine? Are you serious? Are you completely rejecting any scriptural references to Peter from Christ Himself? Jesus said, "And I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…"Please care to tell me what other apostles received the keys?

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you* the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
Matthew 16:18-19

The Greek word used here for ‘you’, is ‘sou’, meaning ‘thou’, which is singular.

Why did Jesus change the name of Simon to Peter? The answer is in Scripture.
Did you notice that Jesus said Church (singular), and not churches (plural) in verse 18?
Did you notice that Jesus gave the single set of keys to Peter and to him only in verse 19?
Did you notice that the binding and loosening are the authority which Jesus Christ gave to the one and only Church that He founded, and to none other?

Elucidation:
Jesus founded only** one Church, and He gave the single set of keys to one person only, Peter.Just as truth is one and Jesus Christ is one, the Church which He founded is one**, the visible head of His Church (Peter) on earth is one, and the GOD given authority of that Church is one.

 

[Nicea325]

Peter was the Apostle to whom Jesus always turned. It was Peter Jesus said to feed his sheep. Peter spoke for the Apostles on Pentecost and performed the first miracle. Peter led the meetings. Peter is mentioned in the NT more than all the other Apostles combined.

Seems to indicate Primacy…

Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times
(162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon and 6 as Cephas).

John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50 percent of the time we find John in the Bible. Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60 percent of the time any disciple is referred to.

Plus the 50 New Testament verses which show the ‘primacy’ of St. Peter,which I will gladly post for anyone.

 

[CDNowak]

I will not provide a contradictory theory since history does support one; rather, as has already been stated above, and as the Fathers attest, Rome moved incrementally to view itself as inheriting Peter’s special charism of responsibility, concern, and right of appeal for the entire Church. Indeed, she was the first of the Pentarchy (Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem). By Leo’s time, the pope was the princeps of the entire church. Yes, even the Church of the East recognized the papacy as having special privileges, and yes, it was to Rome that the East turned when the harmony of the Church was threatened. This is all attested in the primary sources which you wish to address. Those have now been addressed. Again, though, these privileges bestowed upon Rome were of an ecclesiastical, not divine, right.

Okay, so you do admit Roman primacy, but insist (contrary to ante-Nicean sources) that it is wholly distinct from Petrine primacy? (really just trying to clarify here).

Do you have any historical support (again ante-Nicean, preferably) for the assertion that Roman primacy is of human origin.

After Chalcedon (at which papal legates arrived late) the Pope refused to endorse canon 28. How are we to correctly interpret this historical fact and the validity of the canon? If the council is superior to the Pope than we must support canon 28, declaring Constantinople equal to Rome. If we hold that the Pope is superior than we must reject canon 28. To argue that the pope is inferior to the Council because the Council said so is a tautology, to build an argument on that is the logical fallacy of begging the question, or presuming the conclusion. We won’t get anywhere this way, (we’ve been trying for a thousand years).