Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

I was reading the Wikipedia on this issue, and there are a few points I would like some clarification on. Here are some claims made AGAINST the primacy of Peter:

What are the counter-arguments to these to prove the West’s position of the Peter Primacy?

The Orthodox also consider that St. Linus, not Peter, was actually the first Bishop of Rome.

Regarding the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, Jaroslav Pelikan writes,[14] “As Roman Catholic scholars now concede, the ancient Christian father Cyprian used it to prove the authority of the bishop—not merely of the Roman bishop, but of every bishop,” referring to Maurice Bevenot’s work on St. Cyprian.

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, “rock” is a likely reference to Peter personally since the very name “Peter” means “rock.”.[48] However Matthew 18:18 implies that the other Apostles were given the same powers. Although the word keys is explicitly absent from this later verse a number of Church Fathers recognized that the meaning of keys is implicitly there; that the rest of the church has the keys

And then they go on to list quotes supporting this position by different church fathers.

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter as being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ’s public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only “degrees of intimacy” or “degrees of honor.”

The third canon of the First Council of Constantinople of 381 AD declares Constantinople the new Rome, gives the Bishop of Rome the seat of honor and gives the Bishop of Constantinople second place in honor.

Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that “rock” simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as well as Peter’s confession of faith which is what has ultimate significance in establishing the Church

Here is the link to the Wikipedia article about this: Primacy of Peter - Wikipedia

 

[R_H_Benson]

The primacy of Peter and his successors is a divinely revealed Dogma of the Roman Catholic Church. That is as real as it can get.

 

[JamalChristophr]

Well, I think there is good evidence for it.

Proof? hmmm, I don’t know. There is proof enough for me.

I guess if I really don’t want to believe it (hypothetically speaking) , there is not sufficient proof for me.

But there is a very very strong apologetics argument that can be made. Let me say that.

 

[StJoseph8]

I don’t know. I’m currently reading “You Are Peter” by Orthodox scholar Olivier Clement. He generally accepts the idea of papal primacy and shows that the early churches accepted at least some form of primacy. I have gone through about half of it and it is a good book to get. Also, in terms of the idea that “rock” applies to he confession of faith, remember that Scripture can have more than 1 valid interpretation. Remember the literal and allegorical sense.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Not without faith but that pretty much is the case with any religious matters.

 

[JamalChristophr]

It’s not 2+2=4 kind of truth, but an extremely strong convincing argument can be made.

You can find resources online to do that, or someone will write something up here in this thread.

 

[guanophore]

The Orthodox also consider that St. Linus, not Peter, was actually the first Bishop of Rome.

Technically, I suppose this is supportable. The Apostles were not confined to a city or region like Bishops are. But when Peter came to Rome, he was never to travel again. He served there as overseer of the flock, as did Paul, but was martyred there. The real question might be how did St. Linus get to be bishop of Rome? The record indicates that he was installed by Peter and Paul. Why did they have the authority to create him bishop of Rome?

All the Apostles appointed Bishops where they planted Churches, so this argument really is irrelevant to the “primacy” of Peter. It is more relevant to the custody of the Petrine gifts and responsibilities. Peter ordained a line of Bishops in Antioch of Syria that is older than the one in Rome, but it was in Rome that he passed on the responsibility to feed and care for the flock, and confirm the brethren, in light of his impending execution

Matthew 16:18-19, Jaroslav Pelikan writes,[14] “As Roman Catholic scholars now concede, the ancient Christian father Cyprian used it to prove the authority of the bishop—not merely of the Roman bishop, but of every bishop,” referring to Maurice Bevenot’s work on St. Cyprian.

Yes, the Bishops have the authority invested by the Apostles, but Peter was given certain gifts and responsibilities that the others were not, specifically to feed and care for the flock (no limits of jurisdiction included) and to confirm his brethren.

 

[guanophore]

"Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter as being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ’s public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only “degrees of intimacy” or “degrees of honor.”

I think this is very true, and Peter never saw himself that way either. His writings and the descriptions of him in the Gospels are very humble. He saw himself as the servant of all, just as Jesus instructed him. To this day, the successor of Peter is called “the servant of the servants of God” . He did not see himself as “above” and didn not conduct himself in such a way.

As to the “public ministry”, it is clear from the scriptural account that Peter had primacy, but of course there would be no need for him to exercise “power and authority” while Jesus was still with them. Yes, there were degrees of intimacy and honor among the apostles, and the power and authority did not come into demonstration until after Jesus’ resurrection.

The third canon of the First Council of Constantinople of 381 AD declares Constantinople the new Rome, gives the Bishop of Rome the seat of honor and gives the Bishop of Constantinople second place in honor.

Which would seem to make it clear that Rome was first…

Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that “rock” simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as well as Peter’s confession of faith which is what has ultimate significance in establishing the Church

Yes. This also does not negate the gifts and responsibility given to Peter, and passed on to his successor.

What the Early Church Believed: Peter's Primacy | Catholic Answers Tract

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Some good answers so far.

Another question I have is, if this didn’t become an issue until 1054, wouldn’t it have been obvious to both sides where Peter/The Pope stood in regards to authority?

It seems odd that over 1000 years went by without everyone being on the same page about Peter.

 

[guanophore]

Another question I have is, if this didn’t become an issue until 1054, wouldn’t it have been obvious to both sides where Peter/The Pope stood in regards to authority?

It seems odd that over 1000 years went by without everyone being on the same page about Peter.

It was an issue sooner. When the seat of the Roman Empire moved from Rome to Constantinople there was a shift of culture, language, and economy. Gradually the East and West drifted apart, until there was a lack of ability to communicate , understand, and remain in unity. 1054 was actually the “last straw” in centuries of power struggling and misunderstanding.

The popes during medieval times were more focused on politics and controlling land, power, and economy in the West and largely ignored the East.

 

[StJoseph8]

yeah this issue was boiling up long before 1054

 

[dochawk]

Another question I have is, if this didn’t become an issue until 1054, wouldn’t it have been obvious to both sides where Peter/The Pope stood in regards to authority?

It seems odd that over 1000 years went by without everyone being on the same page about Peter.

Yes–but it wasn’t the same page that the RC church is on today

There is no serious dissent, even among Protestants, as to Peter’s primacy among the apostles.

The question with the RC and EO is more what was inherited; RC maintains that the bishop or Rome holds the Petrine ministry, while EO hold that all bishops share in it.

The role of the bishop of Rome in the first millennium was not monarchial; it was more appellate and last word, also of putting the brakes on newer ideas. Note that the Byzantine emperor confirmed the papal elections . . . (even in the early 20th Century, an Austrian emperor vetoed a papal election. The next pope [not the one vetoed] changed the rules . . )

Most Catholics don’t realize that the Pope had almost no role in episcopal selection outside of Italy and North America before the first Vatican Council . . . (Too many also think that he is “also” the Bishop of Rome, rather than understanding that he is Pope becasue he isthe Bishop of Rome).

Most Orthodox would acknowledge a role for papal primacy if Communion were restored–but not the new and novel monarchial role with universal immediate jurisdiction for him.

And, frankly, not having access to Roman primacy is a serious problem for Orthodoxy today–they’d still have the spats and fall in and out of Communion with each other, but there would be a practical way to settle the differences.

the Russian Orthodox are another matter: they want to change the precedence to place their own patriarch first, ahead of Constantinople (and are the most vociferous about impossibility of Communion with Rome. ) They see Moscow as “Third Rome” (“Czar” is Russian for “Caesar”). They also constitute about 90% of eastern orthodoxy.

Oriental Orthodox are another issue, and actually much easier and with warmer relations with Rome (and much warmer than OO/EO relations). That split occurred when the oriental bishops couldn’t get to the Council of Chalcedon before the issue at hand was discussed and were anathemized. A millennium and a half later, after finally discussing with each other, western and oriental theologians are kind of blushing and sheepishly saying, “well, err, it turns out that we were saying the same thing all along, with different words.”

However, be clear: there isn’t going to be “reunion”, as there never was union. The churches were in Communion, not Union, and that is all that can ever be hoped for.

The best/most rational comments and suggestions that I’ve heard from have been from the late Melkite Archbishop Zogby and Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger.

hawk, fervently praying for Communion of the Apostolic churches.

 

[steve-b]

I was reading the Wikipedia on this issue, and there are a few points I would like some clarification on. Here are some claims made AGAINST the primacy of Peter:

First suggestion, Ditch Wikipedia as a source. They stand behind nothing they print. Don’t take my word for it.
Here is their disclaimer statement Wikipedia:General disclaimer - Wikipedia

CatholicHere_Hi:

What are the counter-arguments to these to prove the West’s position of the Peter Primacy?

The Orthodox also consider that St. Linus, not Peter, was actually the first Bishop of Rome.

Regarding the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, Jaroslav Pelikan writes,[14] “As Roman Catholic scholars now concede, the ancient Christian father Cyprian used it to prove the authority of the bishop—not merely of the Roman bishop, but of every bishop,” referring to Maurice Bevenot’s work on St. Cyprian.

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, “rock” is a likely reference to Peter personally since the very name “Peter” means “rock.”.[48] However Matthew 18:18 implies that the other Apostles were given the same powers. Although the word keys is explicitly absent from this later verse a number of Church Fathers recognized that the meaning of keys is implicitly there; that the rest of the church has the keys

And then they go on to list quotes supporting this position by different church fathers.

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter as being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ’s public ministry. There were no positions of power between the twelve, only “degrees of intimacy” or “degrees of honor.”

I’ve asked this question many times over the last 14 yrs on CAF. No answer YET even from Orthodox posters. When is the 1st time in history, in writing, properly referenced, where we see the name Orthodox Church?

As for listing of bishops of Rome, in succession from Peter, in Rome, we see this list of 13 bishops down to Bp Irenaeus day. From “Against Heresies” Bk 3, Ch 3 vs 1-3 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm written ~180 a.d.

Irenaeus was taught by Bp Polycarp, who was a direct disciple of St John the apostle.

CatholicHere_Hi:

The third canon of the First Council of Constantinople of 381 AD declares Constantinople the new Rome, gives the Bishop of Rome the seat of honor and gives the Bishop of Constantinople second place in honor.

Constantinople doesn’t exist today. They couldn’t keep any of their names. It’s Istanbul today.

CatholicHere_Hi:

Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that “rock” simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as well as Peter’s confession of faith which is what has ultimate significance in establishing the Church

Chrysostom is a Catholic
. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1918.htm

 

[steve-b]

Some good answers so far.

Another question I have is, if this didn’t become an issue until 1054, wouldn’t it have been obvious to both sides where Peter/The Pope stood in regards to authority?

It seems odd that over 1000 years went by without everyone being on the same page about Peter.

They (the East) before the break away, were Catholics, and on the same page with the West, for approx 400 years.

First among equals was a phrase invented by the East. It’s a nonsense term. If all are equal one can’t be first, if one is first then all can’t be equal.

And as pope Benedict wrote about this and other inventions,

1. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
   4. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...on_cfaith_doc_20000630_chiese-sorelle_en.html

The East ultimately had problems with authority that was already legitimately in place from apostolic times…

 

[jim1130]

Here is an article by Dave Armstrong from the National Catholic Register.

Top 20 Biblical Evidences for the Primacy of St. Peter| National Catholic Register

and from his blog:

50 New Testament Proofs For Peter’s Primacy & The Papacy | Dave Armstrong

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

And this ties in with Isaiah 22:22.

Remember that the Gospel of St. Matthew was directed to the Jews and they would have not had a problem understanding the point of the passage regarding the “keys.”

I think you can also consider the Gospel of St. Luke (22:32) when Jesus prays for St. Peter (“But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith will not fail”) and then Jesus adds “And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” This seems to indicate he was reinforcing St. Peter’s rank, for lack of a better word, among the Apostles.

 

[Spyridon]

To piggyback on Deacon Jeff’s comment:

St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387):

“For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the Apostles (Peter) as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome.” (Chrysostom, On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Taken from Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), E. Giles, Ed., p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96).

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren, …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

Read more:

http://www.catholicbridge.com/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php

 

[BlackFriar]

(Too many also think that he is “also” the Bishop of Rome, rather than understanding that he is Pope becasue he is the Bishop of Rome).

Interesting point. Do you really think that is true in practise today. It seems strange that the clergy of Rome do not choose their own Pope.

 

[Vonsalza]

For Petrine primacy, there’s tremendous evidence. If it doesn’t meet the standard of “undeniable proof”, then it only just misses it.

And note that this is different from the questions of papal supremacy and magisterial infallibility. I only mention because some have issue separating the concepts.

 

[Kei]

Peter’s name is how many times in the Gospels? More than all the other apostles combined.
Peter clearly has authority over others in the Bible, he is always listed first among the apostles, Jesus’ sure statements should be clear, etc.

 

[Vonsalza]

The East ultimately had problems with authority that was already legitimately in place from apostolic times…

The question there was always “Who/What held the ultimate position of authority?”

Examples abound of eastern bishops giving the nod to Roman primacy among mortal bishops. But many felt that the greatest authority in Christendom was ecumenical council, not any one man. And the notion that any one man could somehow be supernaturally preserved from error (except, of course, for Christ) has always been a very hard sell for most non-Latins.

The western Church had/has some exposure to this issue as well in the form of Catholic councillarism that got started during the two great schisms - which I think has been anathematized. But I might be wrong on that. Been years since I read about it.

I bet @BlackFriar would know…