A new wrinkle on the Primacy of Peter

[linus]

RyanL:

Seems extremely clear to me, too:

14 Simon has declared…19 Therefore… What Simon declared was the primary data point, which is why it is the first thing mentioned (and the reason why everyone quit arguing in v. 12). Because of what Simon infallibly declared, a pastoral decision was then reached. This is in much the same way as happens now (BTW, sometimes there is quite a bit of disagreement about the pastoral decision, but never about the infallible declaration). The Pope makes a declaration (now, typically by encyclical), and then the Bishops discuss how to implement pastoral measures to assist in the declaration coming to fruition. Those pastoral measures can change (as St. Paul changed these in later epistles), but the infallible declaration cannot.

Seems clear to me…unless you don’t acknowledge what the “therefore” is there for…

God Bless,
RyanL

Context my friend, context. It was James, not Peter who said, “It is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles.” The so-called “encyclical,” was addressed to the brethren at Antioch, Syria and Cilicia from “The Apostles and the brethren who are elders…” No primacy of Peter stated in the letter. Not in the whole context, for that matter.

 

[Mickey]

linus:

Nothing can be preserved orally, it must be put in writing to be accurately preserved for the following generations.

Says who? You?

linus:

It is impossible for you or me to appeal to any oral teachings of Timothy, or Paul, or Christ. But we can, and MUST appeal to what we have preserved for us in Divinely Inspired, Holy WRITINGS. Just as Christ and the Apostles did in their day and rejected the “traditions” that did not conform to what was already written. In fact, it’s how they tested the traditions of their day…

Sacred Tradition is not the same as “traditions” of men. Sacred Tradition interprets the Divinely inspired Holy writings of Scripture. It’s not either/or it is both/and.

Blessings,
Mickey

 

[FCEGM]

It is impossible for you or me to appeal to any oral teachings of Timothy, or Paul, or Christ. But we can, and MUST appeal to what we have preserved for us in Divinely Inspired, Holy WRITINGS. Just as Christ and the Apostles did in their day and rejected the “traditions” that did not conform to what was already written. In fact, it’s how they tested the traditions of their day.

What happened at Pentecost? The Church is God-breathed from the beginning (not just the Scriptures, which, in fact, come later and must be determined by the God-given authority of the Church) and the effects of this God-breathing in the Church are far greater than the effect in Scripture which is inanimate. The Holy Spirit descends on the gathering and makes it into a new supernatural creation, the Body of Christ, which is a living Temple, God dwelling within His People as an organism, a new humanity living by the Life that is in the Head, i.e., the Divine Life of the Holy Spirit and His communion between the Father and the Son; individuals are living stones of this Temple.

This Church, which before Pentecost was like the clay with which God formed Adam, is now breathed into by Christ with the Breath of the Holy Spirit, the way Adam was breathed into by God to make him a living being. The Church is not just a society of people that God is working in, but has been made into the Bride able to marry Christ. It is a supernatural creation descending from Heaven onto the gathered disciples ensouling them with divinity, the Divinity of the Trinitarian indwelling.

If Scripture is the written words of God, the Church is God’s living Body to which, for and within which His written words were communicated after His oral words were communicated; but more than this, if the Scriptures are God’s word(s), the Sacraments are God’s actions, God-breathed through and through, and the Eucharist His Eternal Wedding Feast already begun, where the nuptials are exchanged, where the Covenant is sealed with His now divinized Blood and Risen Flesh which becomes the food of the banquet.

This is not so much deduced from Scripture as intuited from it by juxtaposing all the meanings of the Church in the New Testament (and presaged in the Old), of presence; of images the NT uses to convey the Kingdom of God already begun. Infallibility of the Church, then, would be a corollary that follows from this spiritual insight. More important is the awareness that despite being a vessel of clay, the Church holds within that clay of its wounded humanity not mere water, but the Heavenly Wine of Divinity, the Libation of the Wedding Feast of the Lamb Who has transformed the mere water of the human spirit by breathing the Breath of Divine Love, the Third Person from the Father, into these human vessels and filling them with the wine of His Life-Blood, which is far better wine kept for last.

Logic won’t help you here, but intuition will; or, rather, logic is only going to work once the insight is attained. So consider the scene of Pentecost in depth with all the other images of the Church of the NT, and see that event manifesting the Church being God-breathed. This is the NT understanding of the Church.

And there in that scene at Pentecost we see St. Peter. He is not conferred authority by the other eleven to speak for the Twelve when preaching the first kerygma and ordering the converts to be baptized so as to receive the Divine Birth. He is impelled by the Holy Spirit, having already been commissioned by Christ both before and after the Resurrection. IOW, at Pentecost it is not as if St. Peter just happens to be so inspired and the others recognize this and don’t interfere with the Spirit’s momentary choice of instrument, as if there was no previous history about Christ and Peter. It is the same Christ Who sends the Holy Spirit inspiring St. Peter at Pentecost Who gave the commission to him before the Ascension as well as the prophecy of that event before His death.

And at the Council of Jerusalem, St. Peter takes the initiative for the doctrinal judgment (while St. James speaks up on the disciplinary consequences that will affect his sphere of influence). St. Peter’s assertion of judging the issue doctrinally (following upon the previous precedent of baptizing Cornelius) is an assumed authority for speaking for the rest. My point is that there is already in place a principle of visible order coming from Divine establishment and not left for merely ecclesiastical or civil arrangement to grant.

The New Testament already has an identifiable leader of the Twelve who can on his own speak for them deciding doctrinal issues (which were not raised by him) and this does not contradict another of the Twelve, James, from exercising local initiative and authority over his allotted community and contributing to the larger picture.

 

[MrS]

linus:

Nothing can be preserved orally, it must be put in writing to be accurately preserved for the following generations

So now must we wait until some valid authority “puts in writing” which books belong in Scripture?

Now must we wait until some valid authority “puts in writing” which church is the one true church?.. oops that is in writing already

Now must we wait for a valid authority to recind “in writing” any of the words of St Paul which clarify and further explain the words of Christ (re: the Eucharist, the sacraments etc) and his own words about holding fast to the Traditions both oral and written… ?

Now must we concede that the first 300+ years of the church were of no merit until that same church declared “in writing” what Scripture consisted of?

 

[RyanL]

linus:

Context my friend, context…

My dear brother in Christ, I am offering you context. I have expanded your narrow view of “my judgment” to examine why that judgment came to pass, and why that judgment is a pastoral decision, and not a dogmatic decree. Perhaps it would help to view something the Church has written since (topic chosen for no particular reason)…

*** DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS***

---

   It   has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in   regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not   mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.

(Note how similar this is to the Judiazers controversy)

This   Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to   an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other   associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider   categories.

Thereforethe Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

(Note: Says who? The Pope? Nope; he isn’t a part of the Sacred Congregation for the Defense of the Faith. Here, Card. Ratzinger, who was then the head of the Sacred Congregation, is speaking for “the Church”, not the Pope. Is it less binding? Nope.)

It   is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a   judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation   from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of   this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. *AAS *73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of *L’Osservatore   Romano*, 9March 1981).

(Note: Parallel - even if you agree with the Judiazers, you don’t have authority to bind anyone to your opinion)

In   an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff   John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration **which   had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.**

(Note: The Pope DID NOT decide this pastoral decision. The “ordinary meeting” of the “Sacred Congregation” did! If you would read it strictly, Card. Ratzinger said, “Therefore, it is my decision…”. The Pope agreed, as did Peter, but the decision was made in a counciliar forum, and specifically issued by Card. Ratzinger (who would parallel James). No primacy given here, so I guess they don’t recognize the Pope…)

Rome,   from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26   November 1983.

Joseph Card. RATZINGER
Prefect

I guess Cardinal Ratzinger thought he was the head of this decision…or perhaps there’s context that is understood, and a reason why therefore could be used. You also have to explain (1) why Peter’s pronouncement is still held as a doctrine of the faith, and (2) why James’ is rescinded by Paul. Additionally, you must explain (3) why those present fell silent after Peter’s pronouncement and they moved on to discuss how to implement pastoral measures, and (4) why Peter’s pronouncement would be the first thing out of James’ mouth. So far, your replies here have been logically unconvincing, given the manner in which the Church still operates. I would ask, if you would be so kind, that you marshal an argument and present it under the ennumeration I have provided.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

linus:

Nothing can be preserved orally, it must be put in writing to be accurately preserved for the following generations

Would you please tell us how the Trinity came to be formally defined? JW’s, using the Bible Alone, do not hold to this because it wasn’t defined for several hundred years after Christ…they also claim that nothing can be accurately preserved orally. Also, what would happen to a 1st/2nd century church if no one could read or write? Would they instantly fall into apostacy, with no hope of recovery until someone “became” literate?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[petra]

RyanL:

petra,

In that council, two declarations were made:

One was infallible, and thus is still binding on the consciences of all the Christian faithful. Everyone at the council shut up when this was said, and the later declaration was made in light of the infallible pronouncement (read: “Therefore…”).

The other was a pastoral decision arrived at by the entire council, which St. Paul negates in later epistles (proving that this was not binding on the consciences of all the Christian faithful for all time, and therefore not infallible).

Wanna’ guess who said what? If you get this right, you’ll know who was in charge…

God Bless,
RyanL

That is a very interesting disctinction. I had never heard this before.

While, as a Catholic, I don’t have any problem submitting to the pope, and I recognize the practical value to having a single pastor of the church on earth. But if you will indulge me with some questions, I’m still trying to understand why the Bishop of Rome has supreme authority over the Magisterium. In this regard, the Orthodox view seems more accurate.

So here are some questions that are bugging me:

1. 
   *]Was the first church located in Jerusalem? If so, why was not Peter Bishop? Clement writes, “Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had specifically honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”
   *]Peter is recorded as being Bishop of Antioch. Why have not those successors held the seat of Peter?
   *]There is no evidence that Peter was actually Bishop of Rome or that he was the primary authority of the church at Rome. Rather, history tells us that Peter and Paul were co-workers together at that church and were martyred at the same time. Eusebius writes, “After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus.” Elsewhere, Eusebius writes, “…when Evarestus had completed his eighth year, Alexander took up the bishopric as fifth successor to Peter and Paul.” Yet elsewhere he writes, “It was the eighth year of his rule that Bishop Soter of Rome passed away. He was succedded by Eleutherus, twelfth from the apostles, it being the seventeenth year of the Emperor Antoninus Verus.”
   
   The theme that I get from reading history was that the authority of apostolic succession came from the apostles as a group and not from Peter individually.

 

[Prometheum_x]

Just to clarify something that was a source of confusion between DOXA and others:

The Canons that DOXA was quoting are not the same sort of canon as that of Roman Canon Law. He was quoting from the official pronouncements of some of those first 7 Ecumenical Councils, which have the same standing for Roman Catholics as the Council of Trent (where you will also find the word “canon”). Some of those Canons are clearly not mere “little t” traditions.

 

[RyanL]

Good questions! Let’s see if I can answer some…

petra:

So here are some questions that are bugging me:
Was the first church located in Jerusalem? If so, why was not Peter Bishop? Clement writes, “Peter, James, and John, after the ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had specifically honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”

The first Church was located in Jerusalem (the upper room, to be specific, and sometime near Pentecost ). As for the first constructed church, that is hard to say, as most churches were synagogs (but were used for Christian worship on other days). They also used households and crypts; but I don’t think that’s what you’re asking. As for the first diocese…it was probably Jerusalem. As to why Peter wasn’t the “Bishop of Jerusalem”…I can’t really say (as we’re not told in any writings that I know of). My speculation is that he had a different mission, being called to evangelize the gentiles (Acts 15:7). Jews were in Jerusalem, gentiles in Rome (and elsewhere).

Peter is recorded as being Bishop of Antioch. Why have not those successors held the seat of Peter?

The Holy See isn’t determined so much from the locality as from the position; this is to say that Rome is inconsequential. Indeed, other localities have served as home of the Pope (see the heading “Boniface VIII” and the papacy of Clement V). A successor is chosen, not a locality. So…it could have been Antioch, but it just so happens that the successor of Peter was chosen from one of those in Rome with Peter at his death. As it happens, the practice stuck.

The theme that I get from reading history was that the authority of apostolic succession came from the apostles as a group and not from Peter individually.

This is true in part and false in part. It’s not an either/or, it’s a both/and. Apostolic Succession is given to all the Apostles (CCC 1087 and 1576), and thus to all of their successors through Holy Orders. The Pope is first among equals, as he is a Bishop among fellow Bishops, but holds a unique and specific charge from Christ himself (John 21:15-17).

You may also want to read this: Was Peter in Rome?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[jco2004]

Fidelis:

Because they were meeting n Jerusalem and James was the bishop of Jerusalem. It is clear that Peter had the last word (Acts 15:12) and James merely laid down how the decision would be implemented.

That is patently false. Peter does not have the last word, and St. James clearly makes the decision. Your saying otherwise doesn’t make it true. Joe

 

[Milliardo]

jco2004:

That is patently false. Peter does not have the last word, and St. James clearly makes the decision. Your saying otherwise doesn’t make it true. Joe

I have to disagree. After reading the verse, and then going on to what James aaid, it is clear that James merely concurred with what Peter said. Peter thus actually had the last word in it; James merely acted on what Peter said.

 

[Milliardo]

Nothing can be preserved orally, it must be put in writing to be accurately preserved for the following generations.

You seem to have a very poor grasp on how traditon gets passed. Let’s see–first of all, only less than half of the Apostles wrote anything. Are we to say then that those who did not write anything had their audience not preserve anything out of it? Many tribes in Africa do not have any means of writing, nor do many write, yet they have perfectly preserved their traditions and genealogy orally through generations. So in those two examples your notion completely falls.

 

[linus]

Milliardo:

I have to disagree. After reading the verse, and then going on to what James aaid, it is clear that James merely concurred with what Peter said. Peter thus actually had the last word in it; James merely acted on what Peter said.

Must we continually quote the text?

“Therefore IT IS MY JUDGMENT that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, that we write to them…” (Acts 15:19).

1. It was James’ *judgment * to not trouble the Gentiles with circumcision AND that they write the letter. “Then it seemed good to the Apostles and the elders, with the whole church…and THEY sent this letter by them…”

2. It wasn’t Peter who made the final judgment. Peter asked why they put God to the test (vs. 10), but James expressed the final word.

3. Peter was present at the Council but he did not personally sign the letter as “Vicar of Christ,” “Head of the Church,” or as the one in the seat of authority over all the Apostles and elders present. Notice the text says “they” sent the letter. They simply ended it with “Farewell.”

I see no “primacy” of Peter being demonstated in Acts 15.

 

[RyanL]

linus:

Must we continually quote the text?

"Therefore IT IS MY JUDGMENT that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, that we write to them…" (Acts 15:19).

Must we continually ignore the word ‘therefore’?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[etcevenio]

Hello Linus,

linus:

All the Apostles were considered “elders,” but not all elders were Apostles. This is made very clear in Scripture.

Indeed, that 's why I wrote : “But coming back to Peter, this simply shows that **a part ** of his office is identified to (or is) the office of the elders”
I don’t pretend apostolic succession means that apostles successors are Apostles : they are bishops and priests…
However part of their autority was transmitted : Peter clearly states that they have to be pastors, as he was instituted pastor by Christ , the Good Sheperd !

linus:

EPH. 2:20 "…having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets,
Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone…,"Of course there’s a “primacy” attributed to Peter - he’s an Apostle, they’re elders. As shown by the above quotes from Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, their job was to exhort and build up the believers. But there’s nothing at all in Peter’s writings to suggest by what he wrote to those whom he addressed in his letter, especially concerning himself, that he was given by Christ any kind of primacy in respect to the other Apostles.

The “primacy” of Peter comes from many evidences from scriptures ! Particularly by the fact that Christ gave to Peter taken alone what he gave in a second time to the rest of the Apostles :

• All are fondations (Rev21:14;Ep2:20), Peter is the Rock on which Jesus builds (Matt16:18)
• All are pastors (Act20:28; 1Peter5:2), Peter is the universal pastor.
• All have the keys, the power to bind and loose (Matt18:18; John20:23); Peter received this apart (Matt16:19)
• All are witnesses of the Risen Lord (Acts1:8) Peter’s in first (1Co15:5; luk24:34)
• Jesus prayed for all the Apostle ( John17:9;20); for Peter in order to serve the others (Luk22:32)
  So Peter IS one of the twelves, but is also singularised amond the twelves. More than a fondation, he is Rock; more than a pastor, he is universal pastor; he receved the mission to strengthen the faith of his brothers…

Morever we see him talking for the whole apostles; we often see the sentence “Peter and the 11”; etc, etc…

linus:

Peter’s said “primacy,” which was subsequently extended to the Bishop(s) of Rome (popularly called the “chair of Peter”), is not a doctrine based on an exegetical study of the N. T. Scriptures. But a doctrine developed after the Apostolic age, rooted in the assertions of men. Pope Siricius (385-398) was the first to claim Universal Jurisdiction of the Church.

Well, is it so sur? Of course the fact that Clement of Rome feels allowed to write to the corinthiens for something that has no matter with Rome is not a proof per se, but is significativ of a bishop who understands that is juridiction is broader that its own Rome’s diocese…
And there’s Irenee of Lyon explanaing that it’s with the Church of Rome that every Church must be in communion…
So it seems that practical Primacy existed before the developped theory. At this time, when can this practice comes from, if not from tha apostles : no one protested against these two practical exemple of the primacy …
It seems on the contrary that the theory developped because of the facts…
Then, reflecting on what the Christ told to Peter, the Church went deeper in the understanding of Peter’s primacy along the centuries …
It’s something to be seen as an obedience to our Lord’s desire, not a :

linus:

pride of men and their lust for power.

Of course there could have been pride men who became pope; but also humble…
Remember : popes are men

God Bless you.

 

[Pythagoras]

linus:

Must we continually quote the text?

"Therefore IT IS MY JUDGMENT that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, that we write to them…" (Acts 15:19).

1. It was James’ *judgment * to not trouble the Gentiles with circumcision AND that they write the letter. *“Then it seemed good to the Apostles * and the elders, with the whole church…and THEY sent this letter by them…”

2. It wasn’t Peter who made the final judgment. Peter asked why they put God to the test (vs. 10), but James expressed the final word.

3. Peter was present at the Council but he did not personally sign the letter as “Vicar of Christ,” “Head of the Church,” or as the one in the seat of authority over all the Apostles and elders present. Notice the text says “they” sent the letter. They simply ended it with “Farewell.”

I see no “primacy” of Peter being demonstated in Acts 15.

Linus, RyanL already answered your question regarding this in Ratzinger’s DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS posted above, try answering that post

 

[Pythagoras]

James is really the leader of the Christian community in Jerusalem but to say that James holds a position higher than Peter is really nonsense.

**James is not even one of the ORIGINAL twelve apostles of Christ ** so how can he be higher than Peter the apostle?

 

[Edwin1961]

NotWorthy:

Jesus needed twelve Apostles only for the Pentecost, to reconstitue the new Israel. You’ll notice there was no requirement to choose another Apostle when the first Apostle was martyred (I can’t remember the name). After that, they, the Apostles, were to spread the news of the Gospel to all the nations of the earth. This necessitated the need for more bishops. The position of Bishop had Apostolic Succession.

Notworthy

I believe the first Apostle to be martyred was James in Jerusalem.

However, after reading ALL the posts I find it rather confusing that the debate here hinges on two subjects:

Who’s in charge of the ‘Whole Church’ and what is Tradition and tradition which determines the True Church?

RIght now, I have to take what Jesus said to Peter as being ‘the rock’, as being true and on faith. I do not know ANYWHERE else in Scripture where Jesus ‘pulled back his decision’ and took it away from Peter.

As for Tradition vs. tradition and Ecumenical Councils and the like, Where in Scripture does it say that what Man does circumvents Scripture? I don’t see Latin Rite Catholics (the Pope) overturning Scripture in place of the decrees of that were agreed upon by Vatican II. So why does the Seven Eucmenical Councils overide Scripture in the East?

As an Eastern Catholic (I would be considered a ‘traitor’ to the Orthodox) we tend to believe that certain ‘errors’ took place and have ‘come home’ (Errors being the Schism of 1054). Maybe the Orthodox see us Eastern Catholics as ‘a threat’ because we have the Best of Both traditions. Overall, this ALL has to do with Authority and Who gave what to whom. (Jesus gave authority to Peter and the other apostles obey that authority).

 

[linus]

Pythagoras:

Linus, RyanL already answered your question regarding this in Ratzinger’s DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS posted above, try answering that post

There’s really nothing to answer there. RyanL has done what I pointed out in my first posts, that of starting out with a presupposition (the primacy of Peter) and interpreting Scripture to conform to that presupposition. The two situations are hardly the same. You would have to assume that James already considered Peter as *“head of the Church,” * yet James begins his statement with, “therefore it is MY JUDGMENT…” His “judgment” is not then run by Peter for approval (remember, Peter was AT the Council).

Finally, as I pointed out, the letter is stated to be from the Apostles (plural) and the elders of the church at Jerusalem.

Also, Peter does not make a “declaration,” (as RyanL asserts) but* relates* to the Council how God first used him to present the gospel of Christ to the Gentiles. His point being that God made no distinction between Jew and Gentile then. So, it is on this information, submitted to the Council by Peter, that James begins his judgment with, *“therefore…” *

Action is then taken after James makes the final decision. Now that doesn’t mean that James had higher authority than Peter and Paul, but that he presided over the Council. Every Council must have order, and James (along with the elders) was pastoring the church at Jerusalem, where the Council was held.

If you allow the text to speak for itself, and not pour your own presupposition into it, there is no so-called *“Primacy of Peter” * demonstrated in Acts 15. Remember, this was the first Church Council, so if the “Primacy of Peter” was true, it would have been blatantly demonstrated there. But, alas, it was not. RyanL had to jump through a lot of hoops and pull a rabbit out of a hat to draw that conclusion from the text.

Of course the “Ratzinger” theory sounds convincing to the one who already adheres to the “Primacy of Peter” doctrine, that’s only natural. But from a true, exegetical examination of the text itself, it doesn’t hold water. You’re pouring a whole other context into the text to make it conform to your presupposition.

God Bless,
L.

 

[linus]

Edwin1961:

(Jesus gave authority to Peter and the other apostles obey that authority).

Can you show us by example where all the other Apostles bowed the knee to Peter’s authority???