Papal primacy

[dmar198]

I’m glad you brought up this issue, because I think we have great resources for responding to the argument that Peter’s leadership role was more or less non-successive. St. Francis de Sales discusses this at great length in his book, The Catholic Controversy, using Scripture and Tradition to establish that a universal head and leader was supposed to be always necessary. Now he is from the 1500s; and ZachMartin, I saw you say earlier, when someone brought up some theologians from the last century, that you questioned the importance of such men’s thoughts, when they aren’t as important as the Church Fathers. I think you misunderstood the reasons they were brought up, which I will also apply to why I’m bringing up St. Francis de Sales: because their arguments are worth examining, and in this case, I think their arguments are successful if examined.

If you would like to further discuss the theologians that another gentleman brought up earlier, I’ll be happy to do that. In this case, I’d like to point you to St. Francis’ work, The Catholic Controversy, Part II, Article 6, Chapter 9, which is available here: archive.org/stream/catholiccontrove00sain#page/276/mode/1up

Now of course some of his arguments you may have already considered. I hope you will read and consider the rest. For example, he begins by arguing that the Church had a leadership role in the beginning, and concludes that this must continue; when another person brought that up, you said the argument was insufficiently proved. I hope you will see if he does not provide more sufficient evidence to prove that argument, along with several others that I don’t think you have considered yet.

One point that I also wanted to bring up to you concerns the Eastern Orthodox. You have frequently mentioned their interpretation of Peter’s role, and of apostolic succession, and several other matters, as evidence that one can accept the Scriptural evidence for Peter’s leadership and yet not believe in the Catholic interpretation of those matters. I expect you also would like to see us answer their opinions on this matter, since they are a significant group that argues against Peter’s leadership role being successive. In addition to St. Francis’ treatment of the matter, which uses Scripture and Tradition and examines whether the non-Catholic interpretation can be sustained, and which I think is as useful against the Eastern Orthodox as well as the Protestant arguments – in addition to all that, I think you should consider another argument that uses logic to argue that the Eastern Orthodox position reduces to a logical absurdity.

That article is here, and I hope you will read it carefully, not skipping over the progression of the argument in order to see what he concludes, because that is not a safe way to assess a reductio ad absurdum arguemtn. The argument is only about two pages long anyway, so I hope you have the patience to consider it thoughtfully. I hope that helps. God bless!

 

[ezeekl]

Many non-Catholics cannot find Peter’s primacy in scripture for the same reason that a burglar cannot find a policemen (hint: they are not looking for it).

As Randy pointed out, Jesus created twelve offices, with one being CEO. As only one example, let’s read Luke 22:24-32 in the RSV carefully:

Quote:
A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest. 25 And he said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. 26 But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves. 27 For which is the greater, one who sits at table, or one who serves? Is it not the one who sits at table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28 “You are those who have continued with me in my trials; 29 as my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you 30 that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 31 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[a] that he might sift you** like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Jesus went straight from declaring that one of the twelve was the “greatest”, and the “leader”, to directly addressing Peter. Peter was so important in God’s plan that the devil demanded to sift him, as he did with Job, like wheat. This happened to none of the others.**

Well you didn’t read Luke 22:24-32 carefully enpough and as a result missed a huge point about Peter’s role as the NT equivalent of the OT Chief Steward. There is an old saying that goes: “…it loses something in the translation” and that applies to Luke 22:24-32.

In verse 31 Jesus says, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,[a] that he might sift you** like wheat,"** Notice the pronouns I have emboldened. In English the second person pronoun ‘you’ is the same for both the singular as well as the plural. But that is not the case in other languages. In Greek there are two different pronous used to distinguish between you [singular and you [plural]. In verse 31 the Greek word that is used is hymas and it is second person plural. In Verse 32 where Jesus says, 32 "but I have prayed for you that **your **faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” I have again emboldened the second person pronoun words ‘you’ and 'your’. Here the Greek word used is the second person singular word sou.

So what Jesus is saying in verse 31 is that Satan did not just want Peter. Satan wanted all of the Apostles. That is why the **second person plural pronoun ** hymas was used. But in verse 32 Jesus says He only prayed for Peter, second person singular pronoun sou and it was then Peter’s job to strengthen the other Apostles. Peter then, is in charge of making sure the other Apostles’ faith does not fail. That is not just primacy of honor that is primacy of authority.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hi Randy

Much of what you have posted is about Apostolic succession, which is a related issue, but not quite the same issue. One needs some form of Apostolic succession to have Papal primacy, no doubt; Papal primacy could be described as a special kind of Apostolic succession. But one can believe in Apostolic succession without believing in Papal primacy: that is the position of the Eastern Orthodox, among others.

Yes, because you wrote:

But she then argues that, while Jesus appointed Peter to a special position, there is no evidence in Scripture that Jesus or Peter intended that special position to be passed on to his successors as Bishops of the Church in Rome; furthermore, she argues that the Patristic evidence on the topic is mixed, and thus insufficient to support the Catholic position. Could someone outline a Catholic response to this?

I thought denial of Apostolic Succession was the heart of her argument and your post.

Since you state in the OP that you already have Papal Primacy covered in your own mind, I thought AS was the piece you were asking for.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As to your key scriptural argument, that the link between Mt 16:19 to Is 22:22 is evidence that Jesus intended Peter’s office to be successive, I am not convinced. I agree that Jesus is alluding to Is 22:22. However, the problem with parallels and allusions, is deciding which parts of the parallel/allusion carry over, and which parts don’t. You argue that Jesus intended to carry over the element of succession in his allusion, but I’m not sure whether that is correct. For one thing, Jesus identifies Peter with Eliakim, and yet in the Isaiah passage Eliakim is the successor to an existing royal steward (Shebna), not the first in a line of successors; who then was Peter’s predecessor as Pope?

Who was Jesus’ predecessor as King? Jesus was re-establishing the kingdom. There was no king at the time, nor was there a Royal Steward. Jesus acknowledges before Pilate that, yes, He is a king. And yes, Peter hold the keys of the Royal Steward.

For another thing, Isaiah 22 says that God will remove Shebna from office and replace him with Eliakim because of his misdeeds; is Jesus therefore implying that God might remove one of Peter’s successors from office because of their misdeeds? But that is something that the Catholic Church argues cannot happen, that a Pope can only resign or die, not be removed from office.

Oh? God has never removed a pope from office? Are you familiar with Pope Sixtus V? You can read the story here…about 2/3 of the way down the page:

catholicfaithandreason.org/papal-infallibility.html

Yet, there is no indication in Isaiah 22 of Shebna resigning; 22:19 makes clear his departure from office is forced rather than voluntary. While Isaiah 22:18 does refer to Shebna’s death, it is a death subsequent to exile or abduction to another land, and it seems plausible that Eliakim may have succeeded Shebna in office before Shebna died. It is also worth considering Isaiah 36:3, which has Hilkiah as steward and Shebna as secretary; could this be the same Shebna as in Isaiah 22? Some think they are the same person, others think they are two different officials with the same name; I don’t think anyone really knows. But if they are the same person, this implies that Shebna was reduced in rank from steward to secretary first, and sometime later was exiled or abducted to a foreign land, and then died when he got there. But, by Catholic teaching, that could never happen to a Pope. So, it seems to me that the concept of succession is not fully transferable from Is 22:22 to Mt 16:19; you argue that it nonetheless should be transferred in part, while I would ask, if it does not fully carry over, should it be carried over at all?

I hear you. Let me ask: is this all new to you or are you already familiar with the material related to the parallels? I’m only asking so I know how much I can skip over to save time.

You argue that “Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never [end]. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.” Hezekiah’s office as king came to an end, and he was succeeded by Manasseh, while Jesus’ office as King is eternal. But if Jesus’ office is eternal, why not Peter’s? Of course, you argue that Peter’s office is eternal through his successors; but I am thinking of Peter’s office as being eternal in another sense, that Peter remains Prince of the Apostles in Heaven, and that through his key, foundational role in Church history, his influence continues to this day (quite apart from any questions of succession to offices), and hence in that sense is eternal. So there are two senses in which Peter’s office can be said to be eternal, as continuing in Heaven and as a continuing influence in Church history, without supposing he has any earthly successors as Prince of the Apostles.

Well, to begin, I would simply say that Jesus is not going to die again, but His stewards here on earth will. And the pope is the Vicar of Christ…tell you what, I will cover that in the next post by means of the Shepherd analogy.

Now, in the Old Covenant, the office of King is successive, in the New Covenant it is non-successive; hence, by parallelism, if both King and Steward were successive in the Old Covenant, and if King is non-successive in the New, why should not Steward also be non-successive in the New?

In the Old, a king may have outlived and thus had multiple stewards OR a new king may have kept the old steward in place meaning that the stewards overlapped the reigns of the kings. I really don’t see a problem here. Look at our own presidency and the Speaker of the House or Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Their terms in office overlap.

Another problem, is who does Eliakim signify: Peter, or Christ? Your argument revolves around Eliakim as a type/forerunner of Peter, but then you quote Jamieson, Fausset & Brown to say that “Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ”. That quote seems to run against your argument rather than in favour of it.

Well, I think they are simply in error, and I missed that when I was working one night, I suppose. If that is their view, then they would NOT be Protestants who support the idea of a royal steward in Jesus’ kingdom. My apologies.

This is I guess the problem with Scriptural arguments: they are easy to construct, but it is easy to construct counter-arguments too; and some seem too clever for their own good - you might think that of mine, but I might think that of yours.

Sorry to hear that my efforts were not convincing. I personally feel that the connection between Is. 20 and Mt. 16 may actually be one of the most compelling arguments in support of Apostolic Succession as it relates to the papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

+++

Oops…almost forgot. This idea of the Vicarious Shepherd who cares for the one Flock belonging to Jesus who is now in heaven answers your question above about a successive v. non-successive kings and stewards.

Jesus is God in heaven, and He is King forever. His Vicar, Shepherd and Steward, however, is a man who is mortal. Thus, the king is non-successive, but the Steward must be.

Hope this helps.

:tiphat:

 

[steve_b]

Hi Randy

Much of what you have posted is about Apostolic succession, which is a related issue, but not quite the same issue. One needs some form of Apostolic succession to have Papal primacy, no doubt; Papal primacy could be described as a special kind of Apostolic succession. But one can believe in Apostolic succession without believing in Papal primacy: that is the position of the Eastern Orthodox, among others.

Then what is being succeeded if not the office isn’t succeeded as well? We’re not trying to invent something 2000 years after the fact. We can show continuity here for the last 2000 years that the office succeeded.

Here’s a question…maybe you have the answer to. I’ve asked this for years with no one giving an answer to date… and I’ve asked it in various different ways over the years. So here goes AGAIN

Q: When is the first time (earliest date) in history, “in writing” do we see the name “Orthodox Church”?

Thanks in advance.
Z:

The Epistle of Clement, which you mention, is a relevant data point. The real question here, I think, is do we know why the church at Corinth consulted with the Church at Rome? Possibly, as you argue, it is because they believed that Rome had a special position in the Church as a whole; but it is also entirely plausible that they may have done so for other good reasons. For example, one might seek the help of another part of the Church in resolving a local dispute, not because one believes that other part of the Church necessarily has some special authority over one’s own part, but simply because one believes that in the present circumstances their good offices might be beneficial. It is also possible that Corinth referred to Rome because they believed it had some sort of authority over Corinth which was less than universal. Arguably, one practice in the early Church was to refer disputes in local churches to its chief centres, the Apostolic Sees, for resolution. Rome may well have been the nearest Apostolic See to Corinth (as the bird flies, Alexandria is slightly closer, but other factors such as social/personal/cultural links may have played a larger role than pure distance). At a later point in Church history, the Church became geographically structured so that the dioceses of a province reported in (as it were) to its metropolitan diocese, and the metropolitans were linked to the Patriarchial Sees; it is possible that some forerunner of that arrangement applied in Clement’s time. So it is possible that Corinth looked to Rome, rather than elsewhere, for local reasons, rather than due to any belief that Rome had a special role in the Church as a whole. So I don’t think this is a conclusive argument for Papal primacy, it is at best merely suggestive evidence.

Consider the following

• The apostle John is still alive and living in Ephesus…much closer to Corinth than Clement over in Rome. Why did Corinth no go to a living apostle?
• The Church in Athens is 50 miles away from Corinth. They are mentioned in Acts. Why not go to them? They have valid bishops ordained by apostles.
• The Church in Thessolonika is closer to Corinth than Rome. They have valid bishops
• Even if one took an East West approach to this argument, a Church in the East seeking an Eastern see like the Church in Antioch, they too are closer to Corinth than the Church of Rome.
• People confusr Rome the government with Rome the Church. I get that. It’s sort of a shorthand way of making quick identification. But we can’t ignore the fact Rome the govenment is the enemy of the Church of Rome and the Church throughout the empire. Under Nero Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome. Nero had Catholics dunked in oil and tied to poles and lit on fire to light the appian way at night. One can’t use the argument the Church at Corinth looked to the Church of Rome because Rome is the capital of the empire. That’s confusing apples and oranges. This is a Church government issue not a secular government issue

Given that Corinth needed quick resolve for their sedition among their bishops, by Corinth NOT going to Churches closer to them for help suggests to me either they already tried with no results, or they knew in advance they didn’t have the authority to fix the problem with their bishops. Maybe you don’t know this, but bishops have no authority outside their own diocese. And THAT speaks volumes when it’s bishops in sedition that need correcting. It takes someone whose authority is recognized to be over them, to fix the problem

Then there is that issue one needs to explain, why didn’t they go to John the apostle who is living much closer to them than Clement over in Rome.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Here is one more bit that pulls many aspects of Catholic theology together:

The Establishment of Jesus’ Kingdom and Royal Court

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

Jesus inherits David’s throne, and Mary becomes Queen Mother. Support for the principle of the Queen Mother in the House of David is found clearly in the following passages:

1 Kings 2:19
When Bathsheba went to King Solomon to speak to him for Adonijah, the king stood up to meet her, bowed down to her and sat down on his throne. He had a throne brought for the king’s mother, and she sat down at his right hand.

Since Solomon had MANY wives, none of them would be queen. In fact, it was his mother that sat on the throne. This idea is also evident in the book of Jeremiah:

Jeremiah 13:18
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother, “Come down from your thrones, for your glorious crowns will fall from your heads.”

From these two passages, we can see that the mother of the king held the title of Queen in the Davidic kingdom. We also know that Mary is the Queen of Heaven from the following:

Revelation 12:1-2
1A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth.

Since the writer goes on to say that the woman gave birth to a son who would rule the nations, we can conclude that the woman wearing the crown in heaven is the Mother of Jesus, Mary.

+++

Jesus is the King.
Mary is His Queen.
Peter is His Royal Steward.

 

[steve_b]

Hi Randy

As to your key scriptural argument, that the link between Mt 16:19 to Is 22:22 is evidence that Jesus intended Peter’s office to be successive, I am not convinced. I agree that Jesus is alluding to Is 22:22. However, the problem with parallels and allusions, is deciding which parts of the parallel/allusion carry over, and which parts don’t.

Zack, we’re not reinventing the wheel here.

For example

Irenaeus was writing ~180 a,d,. He’s one man away from the apostle John. He’s originally from Smyrna, (in present day Turkey). He was made bishop of Lyon France by the pope. He writes

Bk 3 Chapter 2 vs 2-3 Irenaeus describes how gnostics argue their case in HIS day. Seems it’s true, nothing is new under the sun

Bk 3 Chapter 3 v 1-3 Irenaeus shows not only the succession of Roman bishops from Peter down to his day but that ALL must agree with the Church of Rome because of it’s pre-eminent authority (chair of Peter) . And those who follow this authority are the faithful everywhere who hold to the apostolic faith faithfully.

Key texts

Bk 3 ch3 v1
For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men;

Seems to me that answers one of your issues. Peter therefore, left his own place in the government of the Church, to his successors. And Irenaeus names them in v 3.

Bk 3 ch 3 v 2
tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Bk 3 Ch3 v3 Irenaeus names 12 bishops in succession to Peter down to his day. And he also gives a lengthy description of Clement and his letter to Corinth.
Z:

You argue that Jesus intended to carry over the element of succession in his allusion, but I’m not sure whether that is correct. For one thing, Jesus identifies Peter with Eliakim, and yet in the Isaiah passage Eliakim is the successor to an existing royal steward (Shebna), not the first in a line of successors; who then was Peter’s predecessor as Pope? For another thing, Isaiah 22 says that God will remove Shebna from office and replace him with Eliakim because of his misdeeds; is Jesus therefore implying that God might remove one of Peter’s successors from office because of their misdeeds? But that is something that the Catholic Church argues cannot happen, that a Pope can only resign or die, not be removed from office.

[snip for space]

The OT images used like “keys” etc, aren’t meant to be exact replicas. The OT examples that were used point to their fulfillment in the NT.

In Is 22, one imagery of Jesus and Peter is that both were driven in the ground like a stake. And they were both cut down. … as both were crucified then removed from their cross. Isaiah 22:25

Another imagery, Shebna was the type for the pharisee. Jesus took away the power of the pharisees and gave it to Peter.

 

[po18guy]

Hi po18guy

I’m not sure how that follows.
Regards
Zack

Since no president has ever measured up to George Washington, does that mean that the presidency is no longer valid, or needed? Does it mean that the office no longer exits? We have had some real stinkers as president. Does that invalidate the office?

Yes, to be Protestant requires that one must believe that either the Apostolic Church failed, or that no such thing is needed.

That the Orthodox are in schism reflects only on human nature, not on the demonstrated and historical authority of the office of Peter.

Remember that the authority of the Pope and the papal office are not something demanded of the Church by the Pope - rather, it is something given to, and demanded of the Pope.

 

[jerome_ky]

If,

(1) It was necessary for Peter to have primacy among the apostles,

And,

(2) The Catholic doctrine of apostolic succession is true,

Then it is necssary that there is a successor to Peter that is chief among the successors to the apostles. If Peter served a necessary role among the apostles, then that same role is as neccessary or more so than it ever was in Peter’s day.

Simple and logical. I like it.

There’s also this-

Jesus changed Simon’s name to Kepha (Peter) which means Rock. He then said, “upon this kepha I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.”

2 points:

1- Jesus obviously considered what He did here significant enough to change a man’s name. That’s a pretty big deal, think about the Son of God changing your name.

2- “Gates of hell not prevailing” is almost definitely not something meant only for the lifetime of one man. Otherwise we would expect the Kingdom of Heaven to have been established by the time of Peter’s death, something which did not happen.

 

[FireFromHeaven]

Corect me if I am wrong but you agree that Peter had real authority over the other apostles, right? So if Jesus set up the Church to function like this while he was on earth, why would the way the Church is organized change after his death?

 

[rfournier103]

Hi, Zach…

I’m going to address these topics out of order, and I may have to come back later to finish, but the best way to eat an elephant is one bite at a time, right?

Let’s talk about the “special position” of Peter…

In Matthew 16:18-19 we have… And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to 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. (italics added)

The Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Pretty weighty stuff. Where have we seen this before in the Bible?

Oh, I remember! In Isaiah 22:20-24… On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family; On him shall hang all the glory of his family: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs. (Italics added)

Keys = authority…

Pay close attention to the underlined portion of verse 22; I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. Sounds alot like Matthew 16:19; I will give you the keys to 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."

We also have Revalation 3:7-8… (more keys!) "To the angel of the church in Philadelphia, write this: "The holy one, the true, who holds the key of David, who opens and no one shall close, who closes and no one shall open, says this: “I know your works (behold, I have left an open door before you, which no one can close). You have limited strength, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name.”

There’s alot of authority in those keys!

Did Jesus give the keys to ANYONE else? ANYONE??? No. The Keys were Peter’s alone.

Peter is mentioned 195 times in the NT. The other Apostles COMBINED are mentioned less than that many times.

John, the Apostle that Jesus loved, is mentioned fewer than 30 times.

Peter is ALWAYS mentioned first (with two exceptions: 1 Cor. 3:22, and Gal. 2:9). For example, take Matt 10:2-4; The names of the twelve apostles 3 are these: first, Simon called Peter, and his brother Andrew; James, the son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James, the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddeus; Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot who betrayed him. (underline added)

And lastly… Who does Jesus command to feed and tend His lambs and sheep? If you guessed Peter, you are correct!!!

John 21:15-17 ~ When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, “Feed my sheep.”

That’s all I can post for now. I promise I’ll be back as soon as I can!

 

[Abu]

ZackMartin #19
I’m not sure why anyone should care what Arnold Lunn or S. Herbert Scott thought; in comparison to the former, they are not particularly important. You mention Adolf von Harnack below, I could say the same about him.

Simply because they have the credibility with reasons, by producing the realism of the great saints as well as the logic of von Harnack that ZackMartin lacks.

Presented with the fact of Pope Clement’s decree and the inability to produce any facts to dispute that, it is obvious that ZackMartin has no case, only opinions, prejudices, feelings.

“What should be rather obvious now is that there were no recorded claims by anyone that the Bishop of Rome did not have the authority to act in the manner that he did. No evidence can be brought up in these or any other recorded instances where the prerogatives of Rome were questioned. If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been an innovation then someone would have opposed it, as the Fathers were not slow in doing with innovations in the Church when they cropped up from time to time. However, the Primacy of Rome and the claims of its bishops was no secret or innovation. If it was, then not one single patristic opponent of the decisions of Rome ever claimed that Rome lacked the authority to render the decisive judgment on matters of doctrine or discipline. This is significant, because there were Fathers who had both doctrinal and disciplinary disputes with the Roman See from time to time - including some of its staunchest supporters (such as Irenaeus and Cyprian). To again cite the work of Sir Nicholas Cheetham on the period of the late second and early third centuries:
‘The government of the church in Rome had been monarchial, as opposed to collective, since its earliest days. Whether or not the famous Tu es Petris text (Matthew xvi. 18) was in fact introduced into the Gospel during the third century, the tradition of Peter and Paul was radiating from its Roman centre with increasing strength.’ [14]
[14] Sir Nicholas Cheetham: “A History of the Popes” Ch. 1, pgs. 12-13 (c. 1992)”

‘Catholic author Stephen Ray summed it up quite tersely when he noted that “*f the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound” (*Upon This Rock *pgs. 12-13 as cited in the authors essay The Tinkling Cymbal of Mr. Critic circa. 2000).’
matt1618.freeyellow.com/papalprimacy.html

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

“Go and teach all nations….teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Mt 28:19-20). That is the purpose of Christ making St Peter His Supreme Vicar – to safeguard all of His teaching.

Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter initiated the election of the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

“So great fear came upon all the Church and upon all who heard these things. And through the hands of the apostles many signs and wonders were done among the people. And they were all with one accord in Solomon’s Porch. Yet none of the rest dared join them, but the people esteemed them highly.” (Acts 5:11-13).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).*

 

[Misplaced_Book]

OP, check out this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=827302

It was a rather spirited exchange that went on for some pages. I won’t rehash anything that was said there but I encourage you to check out “The Other Side.” Also look at the threads in Eastern Catholicism on the Filoque and do a key search of Orthodoxy in the search engine. Don’t take my word for it, though…have a look for yourself.

 

[cguerber]

If Peter was given some sort of primacy among the apostles, was St Paul being disrespectful or even a heretic when he said these words in Galatians 2:6?

6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.

I looked for a commentary in the New American Bible on the Vatican website but they conveniently pass over verse 6!

 

[po18guy]

If Peter was given some sort of primacy among the apostles, was St Paul being disrespectful or even a heretic when he said these words in Galatians 2:6?

6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.

I looked for a commentary in the New American Bible on the Vatican website but they conveniently pass over verse 6!

Careful! Cherry-picking can lead you astray. Are you forgetting Galatians 2:9? As well, there is an absolute mountain of Christ’s own words demonstrating that He chose Peter to lead. The behavior of the other eleven demonstrates this. There is very strong evidence to indicate that Paul wrote that due to his authority being challenged. And, it was consistently challenged, due to his reputation as a persecutor of the Church. Remember that Paul went to Peter to ensure that his Gospel accorded with Peter’s (Galatians 1:18). Paul had no idea what to do about the circumcision question, except to go to the Church (as Christ teaches us in Matthew 18:15-17) for a decision. In Acts 15, Paul did just that and a decision was made after Peter spoke and silenced the assembly. James, you say? James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and that diocese is known to this day as the “See of James” For that reason, James was in charge of the first Church council, which occurred at Jerusalem.

And, many of us here avoid the use (and especially the notes) of the NAB, as many consider it to be a mediocre translation. The notes can be terrible. The RSV-(2)CE, the Douay-Rheims, the Knox or the Confraternity Bible are far, far better.

 

[ezeekl]

If Peter was given some sort of primacy among the apostles, was St Paul being disrespectful or even a heretic when he said these words in Galatians 2:6?

6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.

I looked for a commentary in the New American Bible on the Vatican website but they conveniently pass over verse 6!

A classic case of cherry picking’ the scriptures. What Paul was saying is better understood if taken in context [as usual]. Here is 2 Gal 1-10. Please note the emboldened part:

"**1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. **3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage –
5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;
7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do

Peter, James and John, after hearing Paul’s presentation of what he was preaching added nothing to it. As verse 7 states, **"7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), ** because they realized Paul’s preaching was inspired by “(… he who worked through Peter…)” an obvious reference to the Holy Spirit. Paul is again asserting his Apostleship to the original eleven and they are acknowledging it.

 

[rfournier103]

If Peter was given some sort of primacy among the apostles, was St Paul being disrespectful or even a heretic when he said these words in Galatians 2:6?

6 But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those of repute made me add nothing.

I looked for a commentary in the New American Bible on the Vatican website but they conveniently pass over verse 6!

I think this is because there is no need to address it. Who is Paul speaking about? Clearly he is speaking about those he is preaching the Gospel to. He is clearly not speaking about the Church, Peter, or anyone but his audience.

In my NAB here at home, Gal 2:6 is cross-referenced with Romans 2:10-11 ~ *But there will be glory, honor, and peace for everyone who does good, Jew first and then Greek. There is no partiality with God. *

The NAB at the www.vatican.va has this commentary on Romans 2:9-11… No partiality with God: this sentence is not at variance with the statements in Romans 2:9-10. Since Jews are the first to go under indictment, it is only fair that they be given first consideration in the distribution of blessings. Basic, of course, is the understanding that God accepts no bribes (Deut 10:17).

And Deut 10:17 says… For the LORD, your God, is the God of gods, the LORD of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who has no favorites, accepts no bribes

What does this have to do with authority? The answer is nothing. Does God favor those in authority over everyone else? Absolutely not. Authority has NOTHING to do with FAVOR and EVERYTHING to do with RESPONSIBILITY.

The ball is in YOUR court, cguerber. A response?

 

[rfournier103]

Careful! Cherry-picking can lead you astray. Are you forgetting Galatians 2:9? As well, there is an absolute mountain of Christ’s own words demonstrating that He chose Peter to lead. The behavior of the other eleven demonstrates this. There is very strong evidence to indicate that Paul wrote that due to his authority being challenged. And, it was consistently challenged, due to his reputation as a persecutor of the Church. Remember that Paul went to Peter to ensure that his Gospel accorded with Peter’s (Galatians 1:18). Paul had no idea what to do about the circumcision question, except to go to the Church (as Christ teaches us in Matthew 18:15-17) for a decision. In Acts 15, Paul did just that and a decision was made after Peter spoke and silenced the assembly. James, you say? James was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and that diocese is known to this day as the “See of James” For that reason, James was in charge of the first Church council, which occurred at Jerusalem.

And, many of us here avoid the use (and especially the notes) of the NAB, as many consider it to be a mediocre translation. The notes can be terrible. The RSV-(2)CE, the Douay-Rheims, the Knox or the Confraternity Bible are far, far better.

A classic case of cherry picking’ the scriptures. What Paul was saying is better understood if taken in context [as usual]. Here is 2 Gal 1-10. Please note the emboldened part:

"**1 Then after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus along with me.
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain. **3 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek.
4 But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage –
5 to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.
6 And from those who were reputed to be something (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality) – those, I say, who were of repute added nothing to me;
7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised
8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles),
9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;
10 only they would have us remember the poor, which very thing I was eager to do

Peter, James and John, after hearing Paul’s presentation of what he was preaching added nothing to it. As verse 7 states, **"7 but on the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), ** because they realized Paul’s preaching was inspired by “(… he who worked through Peter…)” an obvious reference to the Holy Spirit. Paul is again asserting his Apostleship to the original eleven and they are acknowledging it.

Cherry picking happens all the time… Sometimes people latch onto a specific verse in order to prove their point, or disprove someone else’s. It’s sad when people don’t take the time to “follow the trail” of references, footnotes, etc…; or read the preceding and subsequent verses. That’s how misunderstandings happen…