How can we be sure of Peter's Supremacy?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zadeth
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fr. Adrian Fortescue on the Expansion of Papal Jurisdiction

Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.

This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.

The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects on Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion? (Adrian Fortescue, The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451, pp. 35-36)
 
Jesus, Peter and Universal Jurisdiction
By Randy Carson

I’ll begin with the image of the shepherd. Jesus said,

14 “I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me— 15 just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. 16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. (John 10:14-16)

One flock. One shepherd.

If Jesus is the Good Shepherd, what is the point of naming another? It is because while we live on this earth, we sheep need a shepherd of flesh and blood and we can see with our own eyes and hear with our own ears. I’ll mention in passing that the Church is NOT an invisible composite of all believers regardless of denomination or creed but rather it is a visible organization with a visible head. “A city built on a hill cannot be hidden.”

So, Jesus understood our need for an earthly shepherd, and that need has not changed with the passage of time. That is one reason why Catholics accept the doctrine of Apostolic Succession; our ongoing need for a shepherd to guide us explains why the office of the shepherd of the flock is handed down from one bishop to the next through the laying on of hands.

**OBJECTION: But this principle applies equally to all bishops, doesn’t it? **
ANSWER: Absolutely.

**OBJECTION: Well, then, this proves nothing regarding universal jurisdiction. **
ANSWER: Not directly. However, the Word of God tells us more regarding Peter’s unique role as shepherd of the whole Church. Turn with me to Luke’s gospel.

Luke 22:24-32
24 A dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 26 the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves. 27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

This passage is often quoted by non-Catholics who believe it proves that Jesus never intended for Peter to be the head of the Church. Instead, it actually proves that He did.

First, notice that in verse 31, Jesus says that Satan has asked to sift or test ALL of the apostles - the word “you” there is plural. But in verse 32, the “you” is singular meaning that Jesus has not prayed for ALL the apostles but for Peter alone who was tasked with strengthening his brother apostles.

So, what about those Greek words in the passage above - *hegeomai *and sterizo? What do they mean?

*Hegeomai *(Jesus is referring to Simon)
  1. to lead
    a) to go before
    b) to be a leader
  2. to rule, command
  3. to have authority over
  4. a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
  5. used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
  6. the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
  7. to consider, deem, account, think
Sterizo
  1. to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
  2. to strengthen, make firm
  3. to render constant, confirm, one’s mind
In addressing the question of who would be the greatest, Jesus DID NOT deny that one would be greater than the others. Instead, he focused on teaching about the proper character of the one who would lead. Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? No. Did He say one would NOT be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No.

In fact, his language actually confirms that one would lead because He explicitly stated the character traits needed for the job. Peter is to lead, rule, command, have authority over the others, govern, and control in counsels…make his brothers stable, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman.

Has our need for this leadership changed with the passage of time? No.

And that, my friends, is why Jesus established universal jurisdiction in the Petrine office. 👍
 
Of course Peter had the keys, but it’s true that the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have long believed that “the Apostolate and the Episcopate both owe their origin to Peter.” - Pope St. Innocent the First

And another from Pope St. Innocent the First: “that Bishops must look upon Peter as the source whence both their name and their dignity are derived;”

We Orthodox aren’t suggesting that all Bishops are the successors of St. Peter in the unique and special way that the Bishop of Rome is.
To further make the point

Consider the following 1st century exercise of supreme authority, particularly among 1 bishop in particular exercising authority over other bishops in another country,
  • How did Clement of Rome in the first century (~80 a.d.) resolve sedition in Corinth Greece between their bishops in sedition? It’s a long way from Rome to Corinth. John the apostle is still alive living in Ephesus. Ephesus is way closer to Corinth than Rome.
  • Why not involve St John?
  • Athens is only 50 miles away. They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why not ask bishops in Athens for help
  • Thessolonika is closer to Corinth. They have valid bishops.
  • Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops.
  • Why didn’t Corinth use these other options? Why go to Rome?
  • They went to Rome because that’s the chair of Peter.
  • Ignatius letter to Rome, (~107 a.d.) Rome holds the presidency.
  • IGNATIUS to the Romans
    "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness. "earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
  • Irenaeus ~180 a.d. originally from Smyrna (today Turkey), was made bishop of Lyon, (today France,) said all must agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s , preeminent authority. That comes from “Against Heresies” and he names 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, down to his day. This defense of supremacy has history going back to the start of the Church. And Irenaeus says where this teaching of supremacy of one bishop came from and who that bishop is. It was Peter and Paul Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-2
 
To further make the point

Consider the following 1st century exercise of supreme authority, particularly among 1 bishop in particular exercising authority over other bishops in another country,
  • How did Clement of Rome in the first century (~80 a.d.) resolve sedition in Corinth Greece between their bishops in sedition? It’s a long way from Rome to Corinth. John the apostle is still alive living in Ephesus. Ephesus is way closer to Corinth than Rome.
  • Why not involve St John?
  • Athens is only 50 miles away. They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why not ask bishops in Athens for help
  • Thessolonika is closer to Corinth. They have valid bishops.
  • Antioch is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops.
  • Why didn’t Corinth use these other options? Why go to Rome?
  • They went to Rome because that’s the chair of Peter.
  • Ignatius letter to Rome, (~107 a.d.) Rome holds the presidency.
  • IGNATIUS to the Romans
    "Ignatius, who is also Theophorus, unto her that hath found mercy in the bountifulness of the Father Most High and of Jesus Christ His only Son; to the church that is beloved and enlightened through the will of Him who willed all things that are, by faith and love towards Jesus Christ our God; even unto her that hath the presidency in the country of the region of the Romans, being worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy in purity, and having the presidency of love, walking in the law of Christ and bearing the Father’s name; which church also I salute in the name of Jesus Christ the Son of the Father; unto them that in flesh and spirit are united unto His every commandment, being filled with the grace of God without wavering, and filtered clear from every foreign stain; abundant greeting in Jesus Christ our God in blamelessness. "earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-romans-lightfoot.html
  • Irenaeus ~180 a.d. originally from Smyrna (today Turkey), was made bishop of Lyon, (today France,) said all must agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s , preeminent authority. That comes from “Against Heresies” and he names 12 bishops of Rome from Peter, down to his day. This defense of supremacy has history going back to the start of the Church. And Irenaeus says where this teaching of supremacy of one bishop came from and who that bishop is. It was Peter and Paul Bk 3 [Chapter 3 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm) v 1-2
You know what I find interesting? If you read just this one part of Clement, there is no doubt he thought he had jurisdiction.
Chapter 59. Warning Against Disobedience. Prayer.
If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature—having opened the eyes of our heart to the knowledge of You, who alone “rests highest among the highest, holy among the holy,” Isaiah 57:15 who “layest low the insolence of the haughty,” Isaiah 13:11 who “destroyest the calculations of the heathen,” who “settest the low on high and bringest low the exalted;” who “makest rich and makest poor,” 1 Samuel 2:7 who “killest and makest to live,” Deuteronomy 32:39 only Benefactor of spirits and God of all flesh, who beholdest the depths, the eye-witness of human works, the help of those in danger, the Saviour of those in despair, the Creator and Guardian of every spirit, who multipliest nations upon earth, and from all made choice of those who love You through Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, through whom You instructed, sanctify, honour us. We would have You, Lord, to prove our help and succour. Those of us in affliction save, on the lowly take pity; the fallen raise; upon those in need arise; the sick heal; the wandering ones of Your people turn; fill the hungry; redeem those of us in bonds; raise up those that are weak; comfort the faint-hearted; let all the nations know that You are God alone and Jesus Christ Your Son, and we are Your people and the sheep of Your pasture.
How can it be a sin to disobey someone if they do not have authority over you? In fact, in demanding obedience of someone, it logically ensues that you think you have authority over them. I am surprised that the Corinthians did not reply saying: ’We will do it, but only because it is the prudent thing to do. We are taking what you wrote as a suggestion to us, not a command’. Unless, of course, they felt he had authority over them.
 
You know what I find interesting? If you read just this one part of Clement, there is no doubt he thought he had jurisdiction.How can it be a sin to disobey someone if they do not have authority over you? In fact, in demanding obedience of someone, it logically ensues that you think you have authority over them. I am surprised that the Corinthians did not reply saying: ’We will do it, but only because it is the prudent thing to do. We are taking what you wrote as a suggestion to us, not a command’. Unless, of course, they felt he had authority over them.
good point.

And also

Clement uses “we” because he can speak for the Church, and is showing he is already speaking for the Church.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top