Is there REAL proof of Peter's Primacy?

[BlackFriar]

At this point, it’s not “addressing you.”

That’s fine - don’t “reply” to my contributions then - perhaps do a global reply, that’s what the button is for.

 

[pablope]

Not sure what an “extension” is? Perhaps you are talking about the development of doctrine, and find something the Church established as imprudent? The Trinity, perhaps? Hypostatic union? Table of contents for the Bible?

Well, let me ask you about your thoughts on this…was this exercise of papal authority guided by the Holy Spirit and was exercised as to the needs of the Church at that particular time?

 

[dochawk]

That’s fine - don’t “reply” to my contributions then - perhaps do a global reply, that’s what the button is for.

This is silly.

It came from my reply to your reply to my reply, providing further information.

Discussions ramble. Especially the best ones. Context is important. Including something that incidentally triggers a reply is useful.

And with that, I won’t be bothering further with this.

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Rome’s acceptance of the results was a major, but not determinative, factor in accepting the authority of a council as binding

If it wasn’t determinative, then how can we say Rome is the one true authority?

 

[mdgspencer]

Here is an excellent article proving the primacy of the Pope from the Bible and the early Church
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-pope

This is a bit long, but it is what you asked for. In view of all the posts so far though, I wonder if anyone will read this.

However, this is worth trying, by posting it.

 

[RedFan]

Wow! I’ve read the article, and it is very poor apologetics. If you want to prove Rome’s primacy today – not just Peter’s, but Rome’s – you can’t miss any logical steps (this article ignored many) and you can’t conjecture with regard to any of those steps (this article presents lots of conjecture).

I’ll take a stab at listing the necessary propositions to be proved, more than half of which are left unproven – and some wholly unaddressed – by the article:

1. Jesus intended to found a church presided over by one, not all, of his apostles.
2. Jesus gave Peter preeminent authority not shared by the other apostles (e.g., John 20:22-23).
3. Jesus intended Peter’s preeminent authority to be passed on after Peter’s death, i.e., it was intended as an assignable authority.
4. The means by which Peter’s authority got assigned – to one man only – was by Peter’s own selection of a successor, and not by any wider apostolic choice (a la Matthias in Acts 1:24-26).
5. Like Paul before him, Peter went to Rome to end his days in a church he did not found.
6. Because of his preeminence, Peter – not Paul – became Rome’s bishop (unlike in Jerusalem, where James was leader while Peter was active there).
7. Of all the bishops that Peter may have appointed in his travels (e.g., Antioch), the one man he assigned his “keys” to was a bishop that he – not Paul – appointed in Rome (Linus).
8. Peter’s authority not only can be assigned to another, but the assignee can further assign that authority to a person of his choosing, i.e., the “keys” are assignable not merely by Peter but by any subsequent possessor of those keys.
9. Eventually the Bishop of Rome was installed not by his predecessor but by acclamation of the Christian community in Rome, or by consensus or vote of clergy or of other bishops (in Italy, not worldwide) – all with the same validity as if appointed by his predecessor.

I could be missing a few steps, but that’s the gist of it. Miss any one of them, and the Pope’s primacy today becomes a matter of convention rather than divine right. Now, go back to read the article and notice what a poor job it does. It’s hard to say which argument missteps the most, there are so many candidates (my vote would probably go to article’s the discussion of Cement’s letter to Corinth).

 

[catholic1seeks]

Christ clearly endowed Peter himself with a primacy.

Why would he do this if he did not intend the Church to adopt this model? Why would just the mid first-century church need a unifying leader? Wouldn’t the next generation? Especially later centuries? Especially the 21st century, when there is so much confusion and chaos with regards to what Christianity even is?

I say this because, in the midst of these arguments over subtle nuances and details, I think we miss the bigger picture. If Christ was God’s revelation, and if Christian faith is a revealed faith, and if God intends us to know what is true, then surely we must have an idea as to what Christ wanted for his church. But the fact is, the early church clearly saw the concepts of apostolic succession and petrine primacy. The only and universal earliest theory as to why ROME held this primacy was always because of its apostolic authority — founded in Peter and Paul, but especially Peter.

It must be stressed that any alternative theory wouldn’t be found until much later, until after Constantinople came along and some Byzantine thinkers read the primacy in terms of political positioning — so as to better move up Constantinople’s authority.

We either trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church, or we do not. To say the Pope is an obstruction of Christ’s will for the church is to say that the early Church got it wrong — and got it wrong quickly.

 

[catholic1seeks]

Let’s note some of the earliest testimonies to Roman primacy.

It’s actually quite remarkable how much the earliest documents testify to Rome’s primacy, especially considering that not every writer is going to cover every topic in the Christian faith. And yet, Roman primacy is often hinted at or bluntly stated:

1. Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians. Dated to the mid to late first century, this letter is sent from the Church of Rome to the Church in Corinth. It does not state Clement as its author, but all subsequent writers in the early Church identify it has his pen. And regardless, a letter in the name of a church is really backed by the authority of that church — and as this letter makes clear, bishops and deacons are universal institutions in the Church, although the term “bishop,” meaning overseer, may reference what we know as both “bishops” and “priests/presbyters.” This letter is one of authority, and it assumes that Rome had the ability to write to a distant church community. Of all things, Rome is settling a schism in Corinth. And Rome is sure to let them know that they will be guilty of no small sin if Corinth doesn’t listen and re-install their rightful leaders. Whether Corinth itself sought out Rome’s help, or if Rome made the initiative, it seems clear: The Roman church had the ability to mingle in the affairs of a distant church. And this letter was quite celebrated—even regarded as New Testament scripture in some communities.
   BOTTOM LINE: By the end of the first century, we have an example of Roman primacy, by a clear illustration of Rome’s authority (responsibility?) to mingle in the affairs of a distant church.

2. Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Romans. In most of his other letters, he admonishes Christians to follow their bishops and avoid schism. But his tone in Romans is very different. He himself acknowledges that he does not order anyone in the Roman church. Rome, he says, was commanded by Peter and Paul. So he clearly acknowledges Rome’s foundation in Peter and Paul, and that somehow Rome’s prominence–and his deference to Rome–is tied to this Apostolic foundation. Moreover, Ignatius uses lofty language to describe Rome’s church: It is “worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise…” And he clearly expresses Rome as “presiding,” presiding both in the “place of the Romans” and “over love,” which some have interpreted as the “brotherhood of love” or the church. Also, very interesting, is his conclusion. Because he is absent from Syria, he is no longer its bishop. So he says now only “Jesus Christ will oversee it” — and “your love.” That is, Ignatius is indicating that Rome has a role in overseeing his church in his absence.
BOTTOM LINE: Unlike in any of his other letters, Ignatius uses very lofty language describing the Roman church. He also hints at its authority by connecting it to Peter and Paul, and by saying the church “presides.” Regardless, the tone is deferential, and it is clear that already by Ignatius’ time, the Roman church is known for its Christian example and authority.

 

[Vonsalza]

Christ clearly endowed Peter himself with a primacy.

And clearly no one here is debating that.

We’re differing in what applied “primacy” means.

I say this because, in the midst of these arguments over subtle nuances and details…

Whether the pope is Christendom’s “Arbiter of Last Resort” vs Christendom’s Monarch is no “subtle nuance or detail”…

It must be stressed that any alternative theory wouldn’t be found until much later, until after Constantinople came along…

Oh, the Chalcedonian Schism of the 5th century didn’t happen?
Popes have always selected bishops?

The papacy developed, @catholic1seeks. Secular historians and most Christian historians know this with very, VERY little ambiguity.

There’s nothing wrong in admitting that and you can still be a good Catholic if you realize it.

Some merely contend that it developed in a way that unacceptably centralized certain aspects of doctrinal authority - in reflection of the sinful nature of all the men who have occupied such a tempting office, but some more than others.

We either trust the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church, or we do not.

The Children of Chalcedon’s schism say “Amen!” Although, they think they’re the one’s being guided by the Spirit. Not you. Or me.

To say the Pope is an obstruction of Christ’s will for the church is to say that the early Church got it wrong — and got it wrong quickly.

Or you can say what most historians say; it developed. Roman primacy in the 3rd century doesn’t appear to be the same as Roman primacy in the 13th nor even the 21st.

Let’s note some of the earliest testimonies to Roman primacy.

Again, primacy is not in question. So lets stop using that word as though it is.

BOTTOM LINE:

You need to show some sort of credential if you’re going to attempt to authoritatively interpret the early Fathers for me. So if you want to cite them, great! But spare me the “Bottom Line” declarations…
You know that they weren’t infallible?
You know the easterners claim most of them too, right?

!BOTTOM LINE!

 

[pablope]

catholic1seeks:

Christ clearly endowed Peter himself with a primacy.

The papacy developed, @catholic1seeks. Secular historians and most Christian historians know this with very, VERY little ambiguity.

There’s nothing wrong in admitting that and you can still be a good Catholic if you realize it.

Or you can say what most historians say; it developed. Roman primacy in the 3rd century doesn’t appear to be the same as Roman primacy in the 13th nor even the 21st.

!BOTTOM LINE!

well…do you see anything wrong with “development”? You do not expect it to stagnage, stuck in time, do you?

 

[Vonsalza]

well…do you see anything wrong with “development”? You do not expect it to stagnage, stuck in time, do you?

Development in and of itself?

No. It’s a fine thing, I guess. Or at least it can be.

But perhaps it developed in a way where the pope solely assumed some of the power that Christ meant to always be shared among the other apostles.

Additionally, the Vatican I proclamations about papal supremacy are difficult to find echos of the further you get from 19th century Rome; both chronologically and geographically.

 

[dochawk]

If it wasn’t determinative, then how can we say Rome is the one authority?

After your question, this discussion flew completely off the rails, so I won’t be returning to it.

The partial answer is that the whole church accepted Rome’s primacy with the acceptance of the councils setting precedence, if nothing else.

However, I don’t think that even modern RC theology makes Rome “the one true authority”–this would deny or trivialize the councils, as well as contradict modern teachings on Papal Infallibility, which specify a role for the rest of the episcopacy.

hakw

 

[mdgspencer]

I am surprised at the objections to this article on Peter’s primacy, which is provided at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/biblical-support-for-the-pope

These objections include the remark that this article doesn’t show that Jesus gave Peter preeminent authority not shared by the other apostles (e.g., John 20:22-23).

However, here is a quote from this article on Peter’s primacy:
“There is more to Peter’s role than simply being the leader of the twelve. When he receives the divine revelation that Jesus is the Son of God–as recorded in Matthew 16.13-20, Jesus says that this truth which Peter confesses, is the rock on which the church will be founded; and then Jesus makes a pun on the name Peter–which means rock. Because he was able to receive this fundamental revelation from God, Peter himself will be the Rock on which the church is founded. That Peter–the leader of the Apostles– is the Rock on which the church is founded matches up with Paul’s teaching in Ephesians 2.20 where he says the church is built on the foundation stone of the prophets and apostles.”
“This important passage in Matthew is full of fascinating details. For example, we’re told that this conversation took place near Caesarea Phillipi. At that place was a huge natural rock formation on top of which the Romans had built a temple to the pagan shepherd god Pan. So when Jesus said, ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church.’ he was looking at this great rocky foundation on which stood a pagan temple to a shepherd god, and Jesus’ meaning was clear–Peter, whose name means ‘rock’ was to be a great foundation for Christ’s church–the Church of the real Good Shepherd.”
“The passage reveals other truths about Peter’s special relationship with Jesus. It reminds us that it was Jesus who gave Simon the name Peter in the first place, and in the Bible when someone is given a new name by God it means they are given a new calling and a new identity. So when God called Abram to be the father of his people his name was changed from Abram to Abraham. In fact, there is an interesting parallel between Peter and Abraham which Jesus’ hearers would have understood perfectly. In Isaiah 51.1 the prophet says to the Jewish people, ‘Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the quarry from which you were digged. Look to Abraham your father…’ The Jewish teachers said about this passage– ‘When God looked upon Abraham …he said, “Behold I have found a rock on which I can build and found the world.”‘ Of course Jesus–as a faithful Rabbi and teacher himself– knew this passage and in calling Peter the ‘Rock’ he is saying Peter–who was also given a name change–is like the new Abraham, the one who will be the foundation stone of the church and the spiritual father of his people”.

 

[catholic1seeks]

I find that many people I come across more readily see the connection between Peter’s primacy —> Rome’s primacy —> The Pope —> Papal infallibility. This may not be the case for you.

But many people who see Peter’s primacy AND Roman primacy end up seeing the natural result of Catholic ecclesiology.

As Jimmy Akin once said:

Another consideration presented itself: If God set up the institution of the papacy, which group was he more likely to guide into a correct understanding of it: the group that possessed it or the group that was in separation from it? Common sense would suggest that God is more likely to guide the group that possesses an institution to a correct understanding of it. …

Which of the following is easier to accept?

1. Church A is the true Church of Christ despite being a small, ethnically limited, and internally fractured communion that does not possess the admittedly divine institution of the papacy, while church B is a schismatic church despite it being far larger, having evangelized far more cultures, not having internal full communion problems, and having the institution of the papacy.
2. Church B is the true Church of Christ, and its just-mentioned characteristics are signs of God’s providential guidance, while church A is the body in schism.

I don’t think the peculiarities make much of a difference, because I recognize that EVERY aspect of the faith, ecclesiastical institution, liturgy, practice, and discipline has developed. Everything.

You can use technical terms like “arbiter of last resort” and “Christendom’s monarch” (but I’m not sure who claims that latter title for the pope these days??? What is “Christendom” in the 21st century??) The Trinity in the Bible looks very different from the theological definition given in later centuries. The role of the bishop looks much different after Constantine. The liturgy went from a somewhat fluid service of prayer, scripture, and Eucharist at home gatherings to highly ornate (and beautiful) liturgies in grand cathedrals with icons, incense, and vestments.

I have no problem with development.

I simply trust the organic development of the papacy as I do with the liturgy, Trinitarian doctrine, and the nature of the episcopacy (to continue themes mentioned above).

I realize your dialogue with me is a bit back and forth with regards to the whole “primacy.” But I still contend that the Catholic result is the most organic with what was there all along: A desire for Christ to give a primacy to his church. Not a mere conventional primacy that developed later on. Not a mere political consequence. But a real flesh and blood institution for the sake of the church’s unity.

…an institution that would evolve with the times. I understand that you see certain developments as conflicting with the primacy of Rome in the early church. Not all ways the Papal power is carried out is more prudent, I’ll admit. But, because I see in Christ’s words in Matthew 16:18 a true divine intent for the church — a pattern that was recognized at Rome in connection to Peter early on — then I trust that the “gates of hell will not prevail against the church.”

 

[catholic1seeks]

You need to show some sort of credential if you’re going to attempt to authoritatively interpret the early Fathers for me. So if you want to cite them, great! But spare me the “Bottom Line” declarations…
You know that they weren’t infallible?
You know the easterners claim most of them too, right?

!BOTTOM LINE!

My “Bottom line” were meant to summarize my preceding paragraphs in each case, since they were lengthy. And any quotes I gave in quotations were direct quotes from the fathers I cited, but I was too lazy to cite exact chapter. Clement’s letter and Ignatius’ letter are short enough, I didn’t feel the need was pressing.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You know the easterners claim most of them too, right?

And many Protestants claim St. Augustine

 

[RedFan]

Gotta disagree with you on the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century. He urged them not to depose their own leaders: :http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)

 

[catholic1seeks]

Not sure I see objection.

 

[catholic1seeks]

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

Joy and gladness will you afford us, if you become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit root out the lawless wrath of your jealousy according to the intercession which we have made for peace and unity in this letter. We have sent men faithful and discreet, whose conversation from youth to old age has been blameless among us — the same shall be witnesses between you and us. This we have done, that you may know that our whole concern has been and is that you may be speedily at peace. --59, 63

 

[steve-b]

Gotta disagree with you on the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Church at Corinth, toward the end of the First Century. He urged them not to depose their own leaders: :http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/1clement-hoole.html
Some have argued that because it responds to a matter on which the Corinthians had apparently consulted Rome, these Corinthians must have recognized Rome’s hegemony. But read its tenor, and one thing jumps out: this is not the writing of a man who thought he could impose his will in Greece. (Indeed, in chapter 56 he suggests to the dissenting Corinthians that “they should submit themselves, I do not say unto us, but unto the will of God.”)

Just thinking outloud

1. We’re in apostolic times. St John is still alive, and hasn’t written the book of revelation yet, and is over on Patmos. That’s a whole lot closer to Corinth than Rome was. Why didn’t Corinth go 1st to John, the last living apostle? Unless of course, it’s already understood by the Church which is already being called Catholic, that Rome is the Church in the role of president, as Ignatius writes in the year 107
2. Athens is a stones throw from Corinth. They have valid bishops. They are mentioned in Acts. Why did Corinth not go to Athens for a solution? Same could be said of going to Antioch, or Thessolonika etc. Why did they go all the way to Rome for a solution?
3. Corinth being in Greece, Rome being in Italy, If Churches were all autosephelous as the Orthodox claim, who didn’t come along for almost 1000 years from this point, then at this early date in history, DURING apostolic times, how does Rome presume to enter into the internal affairs of an independent Church in a different country, and there is almost a presumption that the Church of Rome can do this. And there is no uproar from the other Churches. In fact it seems from Clement’s letter, that Rome has already intervened a prior time(s) earlier in the Corinthian Church. In fact the Corinthians still read Clements letter at mass.

Not to mention, bishops don’t interfere with other bishops, nor do they have authority over other bishops. Except for the successor to St Peter. That bishop is the bishop of Rome. And everybody understands that from the beginning, and that he has such authority.