Sure, that he calls “Satan” 4,5 verses later. So if Peter is the Primus (as I don’t doubt he is/was), then he’s certainly fully fallible - or did Christ’s supposed preservation of the infallible Petrine function kick in some unnamed time later?
I’m becoming discouraged that you even understand the Catholic view.
The context is quite clear that Christ called Peter “Satan” because of his doubt and misunderstanding. Do you really think Peter in that moment was acting “ex cathedra,” i.e., speaking the Faith for the entire Christian community? Would that even make sense at this moment in time, considering Christ was walking around the Earth and the Church was yet to be fully established?
If anything, this goes to show the Catholic view, since even Peter acting as “Satan” does not thrust his office aside. Instead, Peter remains the Church’s leader until his death, even in the midst of his own scandal and sin.
It’s also worth noting that there is zero evidence in scripture that the Petrine function was meant to continue after the death of Peter.
If Peter isn’t meant to have a successor, then out goes the Orthodox theory as well; since in your view, the primacy in the Church (Constantinople) is the continuation of Peter’s role of primacy.
Besides, the historical witness is that he
did have a successor – and that this successor in Rome held the primacy. And, furthermore, the Scripture implies Petrine succession since (1) it teaches apostolic succession generally and (2) depicts Peter’s leadership as an established role — else what’s the point of the Keys?
First we read “the Roman Church” intervened, not “pope” Clement. And with such an impeccable pedigree and assembly, who’d question it?
Huh? Rome would naturally be tied to its bishop, as would every particular church. Review Ignatius of Antioch. It’s clear that by the late 1st century, the center of unity in each church was the Bishop. You can’t separate the local church and its monarchical bishop. Besides, we know from later commentary that the letter is always spoken of as “Clement’s letter.”
Just browsing over the letter, where is it that he grants Rome the bishopric of his flock?
Chapter 9:
- Remember the church of Syria in your prayers. In my place they have God for their shepherd. Jesus Christ alone will look after them — he, and your love.
Natural enough. This goes along with what Ignatius has to say about Rome’s “presiding in love” and always caring for the churches abroad.
If you’re referring to Victor, he got backed down. Victor’s failed attempt is prime evidence for Roman primacy vs. supremacy in the early western Church.
Not really, because no one rejected his ability to do so. Irenaeus begged that he didn’t. Again, Victor summoned the various synods, and his act of excommunication was essentially a statement that those in disagreement were outside the universal communion — since everyone else agreed with Rome’s Easter.
But, even if we admitted your interpretation, that would mean that Rome itself understood its own primacy in terms of supremacy even at this early date
one of my favorite quotes. Irenaeus was from Smyrna in the East. And became Bishop of Lyon in the West. He was taught by Bp Polycarp of Smyrna, a direct disciple of the apostle John
