Peter a type for the Episcopate?

[LukasHalim]

I’ve been reading His Broken Body, by the Orthodox priest Fr. Cleenewerk summarizing the the key differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, with particular focus on the ecclesiology and the papacy. I’ve been looking for Catholic responses to some of the points he raises, but have not turned up much so far and was wondering if you had any thoughts or resources.

In particular, I am wondering what Catholic thinkers would have to say to one of Fr. Cleenewerk’s claims, which is that Catholic apologetic literature inappropriately assumes that, “Anything about Peter is applied to the Bishop of Rome, even if the Fathers being quoted never make such an association” (page 257). He points out that, on the contrary, early church Fathers frequently identify Peter not with the bishop of Rome, but rather with all bishops. Origen’s commentary on Matthew includes this: “those who maintain the function of the episcopate make use of this word as Peter, and, having received the keys of the kingdom of heaven from the Savior…” St. John Cyprian writes, “Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel and says to Peter, ‘I say unto thee, that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build by Church,’” while St. John Chrysostom refers to the bishop of Antioch as “another Peter” who has obtained Peter’s chair (pg 266).

The book quotes a passage from Fr. John Meyendorff summarizes the claim:

On the other hand, a very clear patristic tradition sees the succession of Peter in the episcopal ministry. The doctrine of St. Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not in Rome, is well-known. It is also found in the East, Among people who certainly never read the De unitate ecclesia of Cyprian, but who share its main idea, thus witnessing to it as part of the catholic tradition of the Church. St Gregory of Nyssa, for example, affirms that Christ “through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of the heavenly honors”…

Fr. Cleenewerk makes some other challenging points, but this is a big one and I was hoping to start there.

Thanks,
Lukas

 

[Catholic_Dude]

You should check out the public Facebook Group called “Papal Primacy: Origin to Present” - it has posts that deal with such claims, and some good Catholic responses.

 

[LukasHalim]

Thanks Catholic Dude. I put in a request to join the Facebook group. I haven’t been able to find a post that deals with this specific claim on the group, but I’ll try posting there and see if anyone can help me.

 

[Wesrock]

I’ve seen the typology flipped back around. Peter is the type of all Bishops, and so the Apostolic See remains to some degree a type of all other Bishops. The Apostolic See still serves to represent the unity of all Bishops. I can’t recall where I read the explanation, but it was essentially a Catholic reply to Orthodox objections that Catholics misread Cyprian.

 

[LukasHalim]

Thanks Wesrock. Please let me know if you are able to find the source for this explanation.

 

[De_Maria]

I’ve been reading His Broken Body, by the Orthodox priest Fr. Cleenewerk summarizing the the key differences between the Orthodox and Roman Catholics, …
In particular, I am wondering what Catholic thinkers would have to say to one of Fr. Cleenewerk’s claims, which is that Catholic apologetic literature inappropriately assumes that, "Anything about Peter is applied to the Bishop of Rome,

That’s not inappropriate because St. Peter actually became the Bishop of Rome.

even if the Fathers being quoted never make such an association" (page 257).

Actually, what they never do, is deny it. However, seeing as its obvious that St. Peter went to Rome and that became his See, the Fathers probably never thought it necessary to make the association explicitly.

He points out that, on the contrary, early church Fathers frequently identify Peter not with the bishop of Rome, but rather with all bishops.

You can read them for yourself, but let’s just take St. John Chrysostom. Let’s look at the superlatives he uses for St. Peter:

_ “Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])_
St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter Rome Papacy

Do you really think that St. John Chrysostom would not hold the See of Peter as the superlative See in the world and thus, that the Bishop holding that See would have the authority granted it’s Founder?

The problem is that Fr. Cleenewerk is reading into the Early Father’s writings, those things he wants to see there. But they aren’t there. The Church Fathers were oblivious to the schism that would later shake the foundations of the Church.