Papal Primacy (particularly historically)

[Profete]

The bishop of Antioch does claim succession to Peter.

 

[po18guy]

Rather than the bitterness of argument, far better to pray for illumination and unity.

 

[jas84173]

Yah. Why wouldn’t he? Peter established the Church in Antioch and spent longer there than he did in Rome.

 

[AlNg]

The oversaw different regions. It’s right there in the thread.

But the Pope has universal supremacy over the whole Catholic Church, not just one local region?

 

[AlNg]

The first shall be last and the last first, or something to that effect, since only two are named.

No. Please see Gal 2:9. Three are named: James, Cephas and John. Peter is mentioned second. If what you say is true and the last shall be first, that means that John had primacy over Peter.

 

[theCardinalbird]

i dont get it i thought in Matthew 16:19, Peter’s Primacy was established? Also what about John 21:14-17? why would Jesus ask Peter and only Peter to feed his sheep three times?
Didn’t the Church fathers agree that Peter was the head of the universal church?

Did not Irenaeus say: The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus (Against Heresies3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Did not Cyprian of Carthage say:
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it” [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [cf. John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4, first edition [A.D. 251]).

Can we really deny his primacy and his successors?

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

The first shall be last and the last first, or something to that effect, since only two are named.

No. Please see Gal 2:9.

Well, you got me there, I assumed you had Acts 15 in mind.

Three are named: James, Cephas and John. Peter is mentioned second. If what you say is true and the last shall be first, that means that John had primacy over Peter.

You still shouldn’t put much store in “weak and tenuous points.”

Are you certain Paul is referring to Peter when he names Cephas second? Why would Paul refer to him as Peter in earlier verses and then suddenly call him Cephas? Do you have an explanation for that?

Perhaps Paul was taking a subtle jab at Peter for appearing to go back on his commitment to take the Gospel to the Gentiles and intentionally called him by his Aramaic name to make that point? A little jab that may have been finished off by putting him behind James in this “list” of those who “seemed to be pillars,” as if to say, “Peter, are you following Jesus or James?”

Read Gal 2:11-14 which supports that point:

But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Still a very tenuous point you are making, no?

I wouldn’t hang very much on it if I were you.

 

[HarryStotle]

Can we really deny his primacy and his successors?

No, actually, we can’t.

AINg picked pretty much the ONLY example in all the New Testament where Peter is NOT named first in any list. Peter’s name is first in every list of apostles (see Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew refers to him as “the first” (10:2).

Here are 50 examples showing the primacy of Peter:

Library : The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs

The Pre-Eminence of St. Peter: 50 New Testament Proofs Dave Armstrong, a convert to Catholicism from Protestantism, gives fifty New Testament references to demonstrate the primacy of St. Peter among all the apostles. Some examples are: Christ's habit of singling Peter out and praying especially...

www.catholicculture.org

Compared to one little anomaly which might reasonably be explained by Paul having a bit of a “beef” with Peter, if he even is referring to Peter as Cephas in that instance.