If the Rock is Peter's faith

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Please quote the reference and explain what you mean.
Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV)

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

My question is in regards to the often made assertion that Peter in Matthew 16:18 refers not to Peter himself but his faith. In Greek the word for faithful is masculine (pistós) and the word for faith is feminine (pisté). For one coming from a non-Catholic background it may be said that this connects the man Peter with the faithful professing the faith. How can one know for certain that Peter is in fact being addressed as regards an office and not the latter—or is it both?
 
Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV)

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

My question is in regards to the often made assertion that Peter in Matthew 16:18 refers not to Peter himself but his faith. In Greek the word for faithful is masculine (pistós) and the word for faith is feminine (pisté). For one coming from a non-Catholic background it may be said that this connects the man Peter with the faithful professing the faith. How can one know for certain that Peter is in fact being addressed as regards an office and not the latter—or is it both?
Those who assert it was Peter’s faith are making the argument to justify their denial of Peter as the rock himself. One cannot separate Peter and his faith.

John 1:42

42 And he brought him to Jesus.

Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter[a]).

In Mark 16…now even an angel from heaven refers to Simon as Peter/Cephas:

Mark 16New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Has Risen

4 But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away. 5 As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

6 “Don’t be alarmed,” he said. “You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples and Peter, ‘He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see him, just as he told you.’”
 
josephback #21
My question is in regards to the often made assertion that Peter in Matthew 16:18 refers not to Peter himself but his faith.
How can one know for certain that Peter is in fact being addressed as regards an office and not the latter—or is it both?
Peter was made the Rock when he confirmed his faith in Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the living God. So why shouldn’t it be both? It certainly was meant for Peter himself.

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. [See *And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
“He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.”
**
Peter’s Authority
More Solid Than a Rock
By: Fr. Dwight Longenecker**
catholic.com/magazine/articles/peter%E2%80%99s-authority
First of all, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, a timeless and everlasting image. That’s why the image of the rock was chosen. That’s how rocks are. They’re there to stay. Then in Matthew 16 Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have an eternal dimension. He holds the keys to the Kingdom of God and the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Finally, the image of the shepherd, as we have seen, is an eternal one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd. If the rock, the steward, and the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still have been eternal? [My emphasis].

CCC #881. The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock [Cf. Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17]. “The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head” [LG 22; cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:21-23]. This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

**The Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium)
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html
ON THE HIERARCHICAL STRUCTURE OF THE CHURCH AND IN PARTICULAR ON THE EPISCOPATE
CHAPTER III
22.

But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27
) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28
) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. [My emphasis].
Notes:
156 Cf. Mt. 16.18-19.
157 Cf. Jn. 21:15 ff.
158 Mt. 16:19.
159 Mt. 18:18, 28:16-20.
Supplementary Notes [Chap III].
(28) Cfr. Conc. Vat. 1, Schema Const. dogm. 11, de Ecclesia Christi, c. 4: Mansi S3, 310. Cfr. Relatio Kleutgen de Schemate reformato: Mansi S3, 321 B - 322 B et declaratio Zinelli: Mansi 52 1110 A. Vide etiam S. Leonem M. Scrm. 4, 3: PL 54, 151 A.
 
Expatreprocedit;13896136]I don’t think Protestants or Orthodox want to “separate” the confession from the person of Peter,
There are non-Catholic protestants who record and teach that Peter’s faith alone is meant to be the Rock, Whom Jesus builds His Church.

A couple of things to consider here.
  1. Peter’s faith in Jesus, is revealed during the trial of Jesus before the Sanhedrin, when Peter denies Jesus three times
  2. **Nathanael was the first to identify Jesus as being the Son of God **recorded in Johns Gospel, Yet Jesus does not begin to build His Church upon Nathanael.(John 1:49).
  3. The demonic spirit named Legion also professed Jesus to be the Son of God (Mark 5:7)
  4. **Jesus pronounces that He has found the greatest faith in all of Israel coming from a Roman Centurion **
Jesus recognized the sign from the Father in heaven, who selected Simon bar Jona as being the sign, for Jesus to begin to build His Church upon. “For flesh and blood” did not reveal to Simon bar Jona who Jesus is, but the Father in heaven revealed this sign for Jesus to build His Church upon Peter.
but the fact is that a prominent view in the early and patristic Church was that Simon was renamed “Peter” because of his confession, and that anyone who confesses the true faith in a sense participates in Peter’s “rockness” as it were- they become a “Rock”. St. Athanasius was “the Rock” during the Arian crisis.
Church history, Jewish history and Pagan history, record that the Bishop of Rome is always recognized as presiding upon Peter’s Chair and Peter’s direct apostolic successor.

St. Peter records in his first epistle 2:5 that we who believe in Jesus like St. Athanasius are “like living stones”. What St. Athanasius and all of us, who believe by ourselves; do not have the keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth as does Peter alone.

No one discounts the great work of the Saints who were martyred for defending their Catholic faith. What remains from their good works. Is when the apostolic successors of Peter exercised their keys to bind and loose those historical defeated heresies by such Saints as Athanasius and many others before him and after him.

Those whom Jesus gave His keys to the Kingdom of God to bind and loose upon the whole earth until He returns. Remains in the possession of Peter and those apostolic successors in full communion with Peter’s Chair (the bishop’s of Rome) in order to bind and loose upon the whole earth in communion with Jesus who binds and looses in heaven.

Where ever you find the Keys of the Kingdom of God being exercised on earth, past, present and future, there you will find Peter and those apostolic successors whom Jesus builds His Church upon.

Peace be with you
 
Church history, Jewish history and Pagan history, record that the Bishop of Rome is always recognized as presiding upon Peter’s Chair and Peter’s direct apostolic successor.
Do you have specific sources that show evidence of this?
 
Gabriel of 12 #24
Church history, Jewish history and Pagan history, record that the Bishop of Rome is always recognized as presiding upon Peter’s Chair and Peter’s direct apostolic successor.
Precisely.

As Dr Warren Carroll has pointed out in The Building of Christendom, 1987, (Vol. 2 of A History of Christendom), p 365, note 80: “There can be no reasonable doubt that St Athanasius as Patriarch of Alexandria and St John Chrysostom as Patriarch of Constantinople fully recognised and accepted Papal primacy (Chapters 1 & 3).”

"Eusebius wrote in The Chronicle (Ad An Dom 42), that Peter, after establishing the Church in Antioch, went to Rome where he remained as Bishop of Rome for 25 years. We know from other early writings that Peter was crucified upside down in Rome in 67 A.D. That date, minus 25 years would put him in Rome in the year 42, during the reign of Claudius. Again, this charge can be dismissed for the same reasons given already, that the Church was forced to practice the faith in an underground situation in order to avoid persecution. The Romans had a policy of hunting down and persecuting all of the Apostles.”

As Dr Warren H Carroll in A History of Christendom, *The Foundation of Christendom *Vol 1, testifies, in The Pontificate of St Peter, 30-67:
30-37 head of the Church in Jerusalem
42-49 first sojourn in Rome
49-50 in Jerusalem for the Apostolic Council
62-67 third sojourn in Rome; canonical Epistles of Peter; Mark with Peter in Rome
67 martyrdom in Rome and burial at the Vatican

St. Peter ends his first Epistle with the words, “The Church which is in Babylon salutes you, and so doth my son, Mark.” All reputable scholars admit that the first Christians called pagan Rome Babylon on account of its vices. St. Peter, therefore, was writing from Rome.

It is simple history that St. Peter went to Rome about the year 43 A.D., went back to Jerusalem after a few years for a short time, and then returned to Rome until his death, save for very short absences. He died about the year 67, during the reign of Nero. Papias wrote, about 140 A.D., “Peter came and first by his salutary preaching of the Gospel and by his keys opened in the city of Rome the gates of the heavenly kingdom.” Lanciani, the eminent archaeologist, wrote, “The presence of St. Peter in Rome is a fact demonstrated beyond a shadow of doubt by purely monumental evidence. [See “The Pope” in Vol 1]
*Radio Replies | Catholic Apologetics Online *| Rumble & Carthy
radioreplies.info/site-se…+in+Rome+&db=1
 
Yes, it is the Father who draws Him into it. I guess it just seems like people discount Peter as a person by focusing on His confession of faith, as if there were a way for the confession to hang out there by itself?
Simply from a practical standpoint, there must surely be a way for the confession to hang out there by itself once Peter dies, yes? In some form or fashion, I think everyone can agree that this is a Rock that doesn’t live or die based on whether Peter lives or dies. It is a Rock that lasts forever, whereas Peter does not, at least not on this Earth.

The question is, does the Rock last forever (unlike Peter) in the form of a highly centralized leadership position for which a successor is always appointed? Or does the Rock go on eternally in the form of an idea, a confession, a commonly held belief? One way or the other, there is some sort of Rock that continues to be a thing separate from the specific person of Peter long after the death of Peter. If that means it’s hanging out there by itself, I suppose it might be, but although Jesus did give Peter a new name, there’s also a sense in which a Rock is being referenced that did not go away when Peter did.
 
badnewsbarrett #27
The question is, does the Rock last forever (unlike Peter) in the form of a highly centralized leadership position for which a successor is always appointed? Or does the Rock go on eternally in the form of an idea, a confession, a commonly held belief?
As there is no “commonly held belief” but thousands of dissimilar “beliefs” led by differing people you can rule that out. This is precisely what the lack of an appointed “highly centralised leadership” has produced as all can see.

Thus the rock, as Peter was specifically defined by the Christ, upon which he built His Church, was protected by the same Christ who promised to be with Her “until the end of time.” [Mt 28:20]. Thus there is no question that this foundation on Peter, with Christ always present in time, is the reality.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often. [Keating, p 208-11].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.”

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament. [My emphases].

“Jesus’ choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman."

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name *Kepha *could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. [See *And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].
 
As there is no “commonly held belief” but thousands of dissimilar “beliefs” led by differing people you can rule that out.
The Confession of Peter proclaims Jesus to be the Christ, the Messiah. It’s fundamental to the Christology of all Christians.

I’m not sure exactly why you jump off from the Petrine Confession that is the actual topic of conversation, to whatever lack of common belief you want to reference besides that- but it’s a red herring, and let me tell you exactly how this works.

You begin your comment in this manner, and I don’t even read the rest of what you have to say. Do you understand? I skimmed the next two or three lines and didn’t remember any of it, and I literally did not read a word of the rest of your comment.

That is what happens when you do this type of thing. You throw in a red herring because it makes you feel good, and it gets you exactly nowhere with people like me.

Learn something from this experience, please, for goodness’ sake.

Edit: The disunity of Protestantism is a powerful argument, and I can certainly see why you like to make it. What you need to understand, though, is that a powerful and potentially effective argument cannot be gotten to from any and every kind of starting point. As it so happens, Peter’s confession of faith is not a particularly good place to segue into this argument. The argument itself is fine as far as it goes, but this is not a really good place to get yourself into it.
 
As guanophore in #35 rightly points out:
“Jesus, the Rock of Ages, grafted Peter into Himself, and made him part of the foundation stones of the Church.”

So we see here the persistent confusion uncovered and solved re Peter:
**'247. Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)?
**Extract:
**The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.” ’ **[My emphasis].
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-se…q=equally&db=5
 
Simply from a practical standpoint, there must surely be a way for the confession to hang out there by itself once Peter dies, yes? In some form or fashion, I think everyone can agree that this is a Rock that doesn’t live or die based on whether Peter lives or dies. It is a Rock that lasts forever, whereas Peter does not, at least not on this Earth.

The question is, does the Rock last forever (unlike Peter) in the form of a highly centralized leadership position for which a successor is always appointed? Or does the Rock go on eternally in the form of an idea, a confession, a commonly held belief? One way or the other, there is some sort of Rock that continues to be a thing separate from the specific person of Peter long after the death of Peter. If that means it’s hanging out there by itself, I suppose it might be, but although Jesus did give Peter a new name, there’s also a sense in which a Rock is being referenced that did not go away when Peter did.
I see your point, and I do agree, the confession of faith continues in all those who are built into the foundation with Peter. The ministry of Peter also continues, until the sojourn of the Church in this world is completed. Jesus appointed one to feed and care for the flock.
 
Do you have specific sources that show evidence of this?
Here are some writings from the church fathers on Peter, the papacy, etc.

“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” Clement of Alexandria [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis" Cyril of Jerusalem [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221])

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

“Peter alone do I find— through (the mention of) his mother-in-law —to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists.” Tertullian, On Monogamy ch. 8

“If you can travel into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church that is! On which the apostles poured out all their doctrine along with their blood: Where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul has for his crown the same death as John.” Tertullain, The Prescription of Heretics, Ch. 36

[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” -Tertullian (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
 
Hello benhur. In post 9 you mentioned . . .

QUOTE:
“But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” Gal.2:11

I’m not sure what the conclusion was that you were trying to make here.

But some people (I’m not saying YOU are doing this) try to use the verse to undermine St. Peter’s authority in the area of teaching infallibly.

But that does’t work.

Galatians 2 can actually be seen to affirm Petrine teaching protection (at least in this instance).

Here are a couple of links why (here and here) and steve b (here) brings out the historical affirmation of this interpretation as well.

God bless.

Cathoholic
 
Those who assert it was Peter’s faith are making the argument to justify their denial of Peter as the rock himself. One cannot separate Peter and his faith.
I’m taking Koine Greek this fall and I’m planning to ask the professor about this on a grammatical level. Oftentimes it’s less the actual words than the message one takes away from (or reads into) them. Another explanation of the gender difference between petros and petra is that in languages with gender it is an insult to call a man a feminine name(or vice versa). Isn’t there a temple on a rock in Caesarea Phillipi?
 
Here are some writings from the church fathers on Peter, the papacy, etc.
Thank you for sharing these! 🙂 I sought out the full source for all of those that I could in order to try and understand more of what they were saying. I always worry that with short quotes it may be hard to understand the context. I am going to share the link, and sometimes a larger quote and some of my thoughts. I am trying to see clearly the different sides of this discussion.
“The blessed apostles, then having founded and built the Church (in Rome), committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate…To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric…In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethern at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then…Sixtus (the list continues)… In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the turth, have come down to us.” [Against Heresies III, 3, 3]
**This shows the succession of bishops in Rome as an example because it would be too tedious to list all of them. “Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches…” He says Paul and Peter founded the church in Rome which conflicts with Paul’s letter to the Romans. But, I don’t think anyone argues that Rome had successive bishops. This seems to be all that this quote proves. I don’t know who founded it, but Paul is likely to eventually have arrived there and Peter may have been there too. earlychristianwritings.com/text/irenaeus-book3.html
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” Clement of Alexandria [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis" Cyril of Jerusalem [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).
** These certainly show an admiration of Peter. Out of the original 12 apostles (Paul excluded), Peter surely does stand out. I don’t know of anybody who argues that he doesn’t stand out. But even the star quarterback doesn’t have authority over the benchwarmer. They are both equally submissive to the coach. Perhaps some of the other apostles did amazing things that aren’t captured in writing. But even if they didn’t, they weren’t necessarily the subjects of Peter. I don’t know if I see examples of them following orders from Peter.
newadvent.org/fathers/0207.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/310117.htm
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221])
**This is thought to be a forgery – “At the head of the Pseudo-Isidorian decretals stand five letters attributed to St. Clement. The first is the letter of Clement to James translated by Rufinus (see III); the second is another letter to James, found in many manuscripts of the “Recognitions”. The other three are the work of Pseudo-Isidore” newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm
"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).
** This is taken from 2 chapters of Eusebius’ church history. It sounds like a complex quarrel between the various bishops. Victor is identified as presiding over Rome; Irenaeus presides over Gaul; Soter presided over a church. Victor thought he could excommunicate part of the church for not agreeing with what was stated about Easter celebration dates. Others disagreed with him. I don’t know much about the controversy, but I don’t think these churches were excommunicated. This seems interesting and something I would like to research more. This is the most compelling argument for early evidence of the papacy that I have seen.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxiv.html
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html
 
“And he says to him again after the resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
**This writing has 2 editions. This document was thought to be revised later on with things written in the margins. This is the one on New Advent: “And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; John 20:21 yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm
I wonder where everyone finds that quote above. I can’t find that complete edition, just that quotation itself on various websites. Do you have a full copy of the other edition?
“After such things as these, moreover, they still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.” Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).
**This seems to be saying that another Bishop was appointed by heretics in Rome and was not the appropriately appointed successor to Peter. This seems to affirm that Peter was a Bishop of Rome. But it doesn’t say that he had power over other churches. I don’t believe so, at least, from what I’ve read.
newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
“Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.” Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).
** newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm
“17. And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity. The apostle acknowledges that the Jews, although blinded by ignorance, and bound by the grossest wickedness, have yet a zeal for God. Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew to eternal life by the sanctification of the divine layer. He who concedes and gives up to heretics in this way the great and heavenly gifts of the Church, what else does he do but communicate with them for whom he maintains and claims so much grace? And now he hesitates in vain to consent to them, and to be a partaker with them in other matters also, to meet together with them, and equally with them to mingle their prayers, and appoint a common altar and sacrifice.”
This is about re-baptism of those baptized by heretics, I think. It seems Stephen thinks he holds succession from Peter. I don’t know if Firmilian agrees. It sounds like quite a disagreement and I don’t think Firmilian thought highly of Stephen. I wonder where the letter from Stephen that Firmilian is talking about is.
 
“Peter alone do I find— through (the mention of) his mother-in-law —to have been married. Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him, was destined to appoint every grade of her Order from monogamists.” Tertullian, On Monogamy ch. 8
**Was Tertullian saying the church was built on Peter? I think he might have. But what does he mean with that….see the last quote…… newadvent.org/fathers/0406.htm
“If you can travel into Asia, you have Ephesus. But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where we also have an authority close at hand. What a happy church that is! On which the apostles poured out all their doctrine along with their blood: Where Peter had a like Passion with the Lord; where Paul has for his crown the same death as John.” Tertullain, The Prescription of Heretics, Ch. 36
**newadvent.org/fathers/0311.htm
This does call Rome doubly apostolic, but it doesn’t say that it has authority. It is mentioning apostolic churches. It is saying that these are also the churches founded by apostles – Corinth, Ephesus and the Thessalonians.
“Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! Where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!”
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” -Tertullian (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
** “If, because the Lord has said to Peter, Upon this rock will I build My Church, to you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom; or, Whatsoever you shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens, you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? On you, He says, will I build My Church; and, I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and, Whatsoever you shall have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are loosed the sins that were beforetime bound; and those which have not been loosed are bound, in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he bound with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he absolved from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, And now why are you tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they. This sentence both loosed those parts of the law which were abandoned, and bound those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even seventy times sevenfold, of course He would have commanded him to bind— that is, to retain — nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God.”
newadvent.org/fathers/0407.htm
It seems Tertullian thought that Peter was the rock and that he used the keys to unbar the heavenly kingdom and to bind and loose things himself only. He shares a similar view of Peter and the keys on his Prescription Against Heretics and Scorpiace where he says that all who have made the confession of faith carry the keys with them. Although he identifies Peter as the rock, I don’t think he is describing the papacy in his writings.
 
Search the four Gospels and you will read about only ONE of the original 12 being called by name by Christ Himself to “strengthen the brethren” and to “feed my sheep”. His name was Peter.

Whom did Christ send to the sea to pull the coin out of the fish’s mouth to put in the temple treasury? Peter.

Whom was the one that Christ mercifully said to “I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail and when you have turned back you will strengthen your brethren”? Peter.

Yes, Peter betrayed Christ thrice but as you well know, both good and bad will remain in the church until the time of the harvest.

Think that about sums it up folks.
 
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
 
Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Amen
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top