Matthew 16 and the Bishop of Rome

  • Thread starter Thread starter Optatus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Optatus

Guest
I believe that the most important ecclesiology tenet is the understanding that the right interpretation of the “Thou art Peter” passage in Matthew 16 is that our Lord was instituting the Bishop of Rome to have the authority over all other bishop in the Christian world.
Recently I heard on TV a historian who said that this “thesis” (Thou art Peter >> Bishop of Rome) was brought about for the first time in 590 AD with Saint Gregory the Great as the bishop of Rome.
According to the historian, before this time, the Matthew 16 passage had never been used to defend the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome.
He said that before this date the Church was administered by 5 Patriarchs in the cities of Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria.

Is this true?
 
Shortly before Gregory the Great was elected pope in 590, John IV, who was then the Patriarch of Constantinople, had proclaimed himself “Ecumenical Patriarch,” a title that was wholly new at the time. His purpose, apparently, was to assert his authority over the Patriarch of Antioch. Pope Gregory evidently saw the innovation as a potential threat to Rome as well, and it seems to be an established historical fact that Gregory quoted the verse in Matthew, “Upon this rock, …” in his challenge to John. Was this the first time that any pope had quoted this verse to assert the primacy of Rome? I don’t know. Has anyone ever sifted through all the extant documents to search for an earlier occurrence? It’s an interesting question.
 
About the year 210, in his treatise, On Modesty, Tertullian, a Montanist heretic at the time, wrote against an unnamed bishop of an unnamed church associated with Peter, whom Tertullian, probably sarcastically, refers to as “The Pontifex Maximus — that is, the bishop of bishops” (Chapter 1), who is generally assumed to be the bishop of Rome. This bishop had apparently in part appealed to Matthew 16 as justification for peremptorily issuing an edict concerning forgiving repentant adulterers and fornicators, which Tertullian disagreed with. (See Chapter 21)
 
Augustine

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found” (Epistle to Generosus 53:1:2 [A.D.

This seems pretty clear that it was much earlier than he stated. It seems intimated in earlier writings and,of course,most writings of those days are lost to us so what he says is great conjecture anyway.
 
BartholomewB, Todd_Easton & EXdrinker,
I am impressed and honored to be surrounded by such high caliber scholars!
So I take the liberty to go further with a question which is very important to me.
First I will make a few assertions (for which I beg you to feel free to correct me in case I am wrong):
(a) Although the “doctrine” (thesis, interpretation) about the authoritative superiority of the Bishop of Rome appears here and there in the Church History since the second century, the actual practice of all bishops accepting the authoritative preeminence of the Bishop of Rome only started with Saint Gregory the Great by the end of the sixth century. By the time of Saint Gregory’s death more than 90% of the dioceses west of the Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) claimed the Bishop of Rome to be "the bishop over all bishops) and submitted their local authority to the preeminent authority of the Bishop of Rome.
(b) In the Church History before that point, many major ‘ecumenical’ decisions were taken with very little participation of the Roman Episcopacy. The most important among those was the “Sanctioning of the Nicene Creed” which is the most influential document for Christianity after the Bible. In the Nicene Council the Bishop of Rome was not present (nor represented) and the Creed’s final text was universally accepted (ecumenically) without the approval (or disapproval) of the Bishop of Rome.
Now my question:
As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later” ??
In other words: “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.

Is this statement something that a Catholic should declare? Is it correct and doctrinally sound?
 
Todd_Easton,
You brought up something that leads me to another question (not on the main issue of my original enquiry).
As you may know, there are many very reputable New Testament manuscripts that omit the passage in John 8 which narrates the Lord’s pardon to the Adulteress Woman.

I once heard that this may have been the result of the Montanists (and Tertullian) having eliminated this passage from the Gospel to maintain their doctrine that adultery is an unforgiveable sin.

Have you ever heard anything about this?

Thank you.
 
Thank you, @Optatus, for your flattering words, but I regret to have to inform you that, in my case, they are far from true. I’m just someone who joins in conversations on comments threads here at CAF, as an easy and pleasant way to try and learn something about the Church.

From what you say here, there seem to be two separate questions about the “primacy of Peter.” One question is about his primacy within the western Church – that is, within the geographical borders of the Western Roman Empire, and the business about getting other bishops in the West to submit to the bishop of Rome as their head, and giving up any claim to equal status. A separate question, really, is the claim to primacy over the whole Church, West and East. This has to do with the patriarchs of Constantinople, Antioch, and so on. They are probably best regarded as two separate historical processes, and quite likely were pursued by different popes at different times.
 
St. Jerome alluded to Matthew 16:18 in a letter to St. Pope Damasus in 376/377, along with allusions to several other biblical passages:
My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!
Click to expand...
It might be important to realize what this letter was about: St. Jerome wanted the pope to tell him whether a certain doctrine was true or false, and which of several persons claiming to be bishop of Antioch was the true bishop.

(Source.)
 
Optatus said:
(a) Although the “doctrine” (thesis, interpretation) about the authoritative superiority of the Bishop of Rome appears here and there in the Church History since the second century, the actual practice of all bishops accepting the authoritative preeminence of the Bishop of Rome only started with Saint Gregory the Great by the end of the sixth century. By the time of Saint Gregory’s death more than 90% of the dioceses west of the Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) claimed the Bishop of Rome to be "the bishop over all bishops) and submitted their local authority to the preeminent authority of the Bishop of Rome.
(b) In the Church History before that point, many major ‘ecumenical’ decisions were taken with very little participation of the Roman Episcopacy. The most important among those was the “Sanctioning of the Nicene Creed” which is the most influential document for Christianity after the Bible. In the Nicene Council the Bishop of Rome was not present (nor represented) and the Creed’s final text was universally accepted (ecumenically) without the approval (or disapproval) of the Bishop of Rome.
Now my question:
As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later” ??
In other words: “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.
Click to expand...
BartholomewB: You brought up something that I am very inclined to believe, however I am not yet totally clear about.
I have always been taught that the preeminence of the Roman Supreme Pontiff is not History dependent nor Geography dependent.
If I got it right, you are saying that the preeminence of the Bishop of Rome is limited to a geographical area (the west) and maybe a historical period (after Saint Gregory, the great).
This makes much sense to me.
Is this concept your own, or is it shared by many Christians?
 
Todd_Easton,

Perhaps you could help me with this challenge:

I am going to give a presentation to a group of young seeking Christians and I was planning to make these two statements. However I would love to have them critiqued and reviewed as much as possible, so I don’t introduce mistakes in their religious understanding. Please critique, question, disagree, comment, tease, etc:

One statement concerning historical correctness:

Although the “doctrine” (thesis, interpretation) about the authoritative superiority of the Bishop of Rome appears here and there in the Church History since the second century, the actual practice of all bishops accepting the authoritative preeminence of the Bishop of Rome only started with Saint Gregory the Great by the end of the sixth century. By the time of Saint Gregory’s death more than 90% of the dioceses west of Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) claimed the Bishop of Rome to be "the bishop over all bishops and submitted their local authority to the preeminent authority of the Bishop of Rome. In Church History before this point, some major ‘ecumenical’ decisions were taken with very little participation of the Roman Episcopacy. The most important among those was the “Sanctioning of the Nicene Creed” which is the most influential document for Christianity after the Bible. In the Nicene Council the Bishop of Rome was not present (nor represented) and the Creed’s final text was universally accepted (ecumenically) without the approval (or disapproval) of the Bishop of Rome.

One statement concerning doctrinal correctness:

As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later”. “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.
 
EXdrinker,

Perhaps you could help me with this challenge:

I am going to give a presentation to a group of young seeking Christians and I was planning to make these two statements. However I would love to have them critiqued and reviewed as much as possible, so I don’t introduce mistakes in their religious understanding. Please critique, question, disagree, comment, tease, etc:

One statement concerning historical correctness:

Although the “doctrine” (thesis, interpretation) about the authoritative superiority of the Bishop of Rome appears here and there in the Church History since the second century, the actual practice of all bishops accepting the authoritative preeminence of the Bishop of Rome only started with Saint Gregory the Great by the end of the sixth century. By the time of Saint Gregory’s death more than 90% of the dioceses west of Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) claimed the Bishop of Rome to be "the bishop over all bishops and submitted their local authority to the preeminent authority of the Bishop of Rome. In Church History before this point, some major ‘ecumenical’ decisions were taken with very little participation of the Roman Episcopacy. The most important among those was the “Sanctioning of the Nicene Creed” which is the most influential document for Christianity after the Bible. In the Nicene Council the Bishop of Rome was not present (nor represented) and the Creed’s final text was universally accepted (ecumenically) without the approval (or disapproval) of the Bishop of Rome.

One statement concerning doctrinal correctness:

As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later”. “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.
 
ELCore,

Perhaps you could help me with this challenge:

I am going to give a presentation to a group of young seeking Christians and I was planning to make these two statements. However I would love to have them critiqued and reviewed as much as possible, so I don’t introduce mistakes in their religious understanding. Please critique, question, disagree, comment, tease, etc:

One statement concerning historical correctness:

Although the “doctrine” (thesis, interpretation) about the authoritative superiority of the Bishop of Rome appears here and there in the Church History since the second century, the actual practice of all bishops accepting the authoritative preeminence of the Bishop of Rome only started with Saint Gregory the Great by the end of the sixth century. By the time of Saint Gregory’s death more than 90% of the dioceses west of Dalmatia (today’s Croatia) claimed the Bishop of Rome to be "the bishop over all bishops and submitted their local authority to the preeminent authority of the Bishop of Rome. In Church History before this point, some major ‘ecumenical’ decisions were taken with very little participation of the Roman Episcopacy. The most important among those was the “Sanctioning of the Nicene Creed” which is the most influential document for Christianity after the Bible. In the Nicene Council the Bishop of Rome was not present (nor represented) and the Creed’s final text was universally accepted (ecumenically) without the approval (or disapproval) of the Bishop of Rome.

One statement concerning doctrinal correctness:

As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later”. “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.
 
Optatus said:
As a Catholic, is it correct for one to say that “Although the Roman Bishop Preeminence was the desire and commandment of our Lord since the beginning of the Church’s existence, because of the lack of a clear understanding of this revelation, this practice only started 4 centuries later” ??
In other words: “God had in his heart the desire and commandment for the church to have the Bishop of Rome as the Supreme Pontiff since the First Century, however in his patience he allowed this not to be the practice until this revelation was clearly perceived and practiced starting in the end of the sixth century”.
Click to expand...
I am not presuming to interrogate the Lord about his desires and commandments. For our present purpose, I am raising my eyes no higher than the history books. Many Popes must have worked very hard for the Church to arrive at a situation in which the Primacy of Peter was not just a form of words but an effective administrative and political reality. When did this happen? Did Constantine help to bring this about, or did he find it ready made? And so on …
 
Last edited:
I’m sorry, I don’t have the time to adequately address this.

I do have the time, however, to point out your erroneous understanding of the First Council of Nicea: the pope was represented by two priests (presbyters), Vitus and Vicentius, and perhaps by Bishop Ossius (Hosius) of Cordoba in what is now Spain. These legates by their presence provided the approval of the Apostolic See to the decrees of the council.
 
What was Pope Sylvester’s reason for staying away? He sent delegates, but he could have gone himself, if he’d chosen to.
 
I have heard conflicting reasons for this. The first was that Sylvester was supposedly quite elderly at this point and may not have been of sound health to make the trip. However, it is far more likely that at the time (given that the Latin West as a whole had very little representation in the Council of Nicaea) just didn’t think it was prescient upon his see.
 
I wonder whether Constantine had anything to do with it. Might he have had a reason for suggesting to Sylvester that it would be better if he stayed behind in Rome?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top