Saint Peter as First Pope

[CivisRomanusSum]

Hi. My question is…

How great was St. Peter’s influence as vicar of Christ? We know he was of course an apostle, and style him Prince of the Apostles for having been given the keys of Heaven and been made the rock upon which is Christ’s Church. We have no doubt that he was indeed the first pope and that this office was created by Jesus. He traveled around the Roman Empire, eventually ending up in Rome and becoming the capital’s bishop. We also know that he wrote letters to Christians, some of which are in our bibles today. But beyond that, what was the extent of his influence?

Did St. Peter exercise his authority over the other apostles and bishops (especially on doctrinal matters)? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m also aware that there was tension between St. Peter and St. Paul who was also travelling the empire to preach the Gospel. In this case, was St. Peter’s supremacy already recognized throughout the whole Church or was there already opposition from other Christians and bishops? Was his role as pope understood from the beginning or did it evolve over time, climaxing to the inquisition and crusades of the middle ages?

I’m asking these questions so that I can defend papal supremacy, primacy, and infallibility from a historical perspective.

Ave Maria! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

 

[Rogare]

Well, let’s look at the Biblical record regarding Peter’s influence:

1. In Acts 8:14, he is sent by the other apostles to Samaria. He exercises no authority here and submits to the other apostles.
2. In Acts 15, Peter is involved in the council being held in Jerusalem. Here, he speaks, but rather than being the final authority, Paul and Barnabas also offer their experience. It seems quite likely (v. 13) that James is the authority here.
3. In Romans 16, no mention whatsoever is made of Peter as Paul addresses those at the Church.
4. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he rebuked Peter for his actions.
5. In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul declares that nobody supported him during a trial in Rome. In fact, the only person that sought out was Onesiphorus. He had come to Rome and searched for Paul until he had found him (cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18). One would imagine that Pope Peter would have come to Paul’s aid in Rome.
6. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder among elders. There is no instance of him being referred to as anything other than an elder and he never exercises any authority greater than that of the other apostles.

Based on what we see here, he was a pretty impotent “Vicar of Christ.”

 

[Bluegoat]

Well, as far as I know there actually isn’t much historical evidence at all about Peter as Pope. We don’t know much about his time in Rome.

 

[JRKH]

The Church “structure” in the first century was virtually non-existent by any standard that we would normally recognize. But Peter’s actions DO fit with one who is acting, as Jesus commanded to be “servant to all” rather than “Lording it over” the others. Thus we might see Peter standing aside at the council of Jerusalem and James (the head of the Church in Jerusalem) officiating. We see him being amenable to going on mission at the request of His brothers. We see that he accepts being rebuked by a fellow Apostle. All acts of the humble leader - servant of all.

The above poster points out some things that do not fit with what we today would expect in relation to the Vicar of Christ.
On the other hand, we do see Peter mentioned by name far more than any other Apostle.
We see Peter taking the lead in the replacement of Judas with Mathias.
At Pentecost it is Peter’s speech that is recorded in Scripture - The first Sermon of the newly ordained Church.
In Acts 15 we see it mentioned that Peter’s speech, made after much “debate”, caused the assembly to “keep silence” and allowed Paul and Barnabas to give their witness.
We have Jesus promising Peter the Keys to the kingdom etc…

Peace
James

 

[StOwen]

Well, let’s look at the Biblical record regarding Peter’s influence:

1. In Acts 8:14, he is sent by the other apostles to Samaria. He exercises no authority here and submits to the other apostles.
2. In Acts 15, Peter is involved in the council being held in Jerusalem. Here, he speaks, but rather than being the final authority, Paul and Barnabas also offer their experience. It seems quite likely (v. 13) that James is the authority here.
3. In Romans 16, no mention whatsoever is made of Peter as Paul addresses those at the Church.
4. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he rebuked Peter for his actions.
5. In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul declares that nobody supported him during a trial in Rome. In fact, the only person that sought out was Onesiphorus. He had come to Rome and searched for Paul until he had found him (cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18). One would imagine that Pope Peter would have come to Paul’s aid in Rome.
6. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder among elders. There is no instance of him being referred to as anything other than an elder and he never exercises any authority greater than that of the other apostles.

Based on what we see here, he was a pretty impotent “Vicar of Christ.”

Why would you look at the Bible and ignore the Gospel?

Matthew 16:13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”

They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”

He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”

Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 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.”

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Bluegoat, have you ever read these pages?:

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

 

[Rogare]

I’m glad JRKH is honest enough to admit that the papacy and church hierarchy did not exist in the early church like it does today.

I knew it wouldn’t be long until Matthew 16:18 came up. First of all, I would encourage you to read some other interpretations of this verse that are able to escape the circularity of Rome’s argument. Rome has wrested Matthew 16:18 past its breaking point. I would argue this point, but it’s been beaten to death already, everywhere. Ultimately, you will keep believing what you want to believe as long as you refuse to consider other options or give up your flawed devotion to sola ecclesia.

Look at it like this, how did Peter and the other apostles interpret Jesus’ statement? From what I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t seem like any of them understood Jesus’ statement as one putting Peter in supreme authority.

 

[Rogare]

Why would you look at the Bible and ignore the Gospel?

I hope this is just an unfortunate misstatement. Are you implying that your interpretation of Peter being the rock is the Gospel rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus? Furthermore, what have I said that gives you the impression that I ignore the Gospel?

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I hope this is just an unfortunate misstatement. Are you implying that your interpretation of Peter being the rock is the Gospel rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus? Furthermore, what have I said that gives you the impression that I ignore the Gospel?

His comment was in reference to you not looking at evidence in the gospels, lowercase g, of Peter’s authority from the mouth of Christ Himself.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

I’m glad JRKH is honest enough to admit that the papacy and church hierarchy did not exist in the early church like it does today.

(…)

Look at it like this, how did Peter and the other apostles interpret Jesus’ statement? From what I pointed out earlier, it doesn’t seem like any of them understood Jesus’ statement as one putting Peter in supreme authority.

Of course not, there were no bishops in the America continents back then. All developments in the Catholic Church have been fitting, none changing the deposit of Faith.

From what you pointed out earlier, you are taking verses out of context of the rest of scripture, and that’s a pretext.

 

[Rogare]

Bluegoat, have you ever read these pages?:

catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_the_Rock.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Roman_Residency.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp
catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Allow me to also quote some Fathers:

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He’s the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On hearing this, Jesus said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you’…‘You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
–Augustine

Jesus said to them: Who do men say that I am? Simon Peter answering said, The Christ of God (Lk. ix.20). If it is enough for Paul ‘to know nothing but Christ Jesus and Him crucified,’ (1 Cor. ii.2), what more is to be desired by me than to know Christ? For in this one name is the expression of His Divinity and Incarnation, and faith in His Passion. And accordingly though the other apostles knew, yet Peter answers before the rest, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of God.’…Believe, therefore, as Peter believed, that thou also mayest be blessed, and that thou also mayest deserve to hear, ‘Because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father who is in heaven.’…Peter therefore did not wait for the opinion of the people, but produced his own, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God’: Who ever is, began not to be, nor ceases to be. Great is the grace of Christ, who has imparted almost all His own names to His disciples. ‘I am,’ said He, ‘the light of the world,’ and yet with that very name in which He glories, He favoured His disciples, saying, ‘Ye are the light of the world.’ ‘I am the living bread;’ and ‘we all are one bread’ (1 Cor. x.17)…Christ is the rock, for ‘they drank of the same spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor. x.4); also** He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church;**
–Ambrose

‘But whom say ye that I am?’ that is, ‘ye that are with me always, and see me working miracles, and have yourselves done many mighty works by me.’ What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ What then saith Christ? ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.’…Why then is this man blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son…What then saith Christ? ‘Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.’ ‘Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;’ all but saying, ‘As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.’
**Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. **
–John Chrysostom

 

[Rogare]

Cont:

The Lord saith unto Peter, I say unto thee, (saith He,) that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven (Matt. 16:18-19). To him again, after His resurrection, He says, Feed My sheep. Upon him being one He builds His Church; and although He gives to all the Apostles an equal power, and says, As My Father sent Me, even so I send you; receive ye the Holy Ghost: whosoever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted to him, and whosoever sins ye shall retain, they shall be retained (John 20:21);-yet in order to manifest unity, He has by His own authority so placed the source of the same unity, as to begin from one.** Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power;** but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Son of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her.
–Cyprian

But why do we say that they are ‘foundations of the earth’? For Christ is the foundation and unshakable base of all things-Christ who restrains and holds together all things, that they may be very firm. Upon him also we all are built, a spiritual household, put together by the Holy Spirit into a holy temple in which he himself dwells; for by our faith he lives in our hearts. But the next foundations, those nearer to us, can be understood to be the apostles and evangelists, those eyewitnesses and ministers of the word who have arisen for the strengthening of the faith. For when we recognize that their own traditions must be followed, we serve a faith which is true and does not deviate from Christ. For when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus saying, 'You are Christ, Son of the living God,’ Jesus said to divine Peter: ‘You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ Now by the word ‘rock’, Jesus indicated, I think, the immoveable faith of the disciple. Likewise, the psalmist says: ‘Its foundations are the holy mountains.’ Very truly should the holy apostles and evangelists be compared to holy mountains for their understanding was laid down like a foundation for posterity, so that those who had been caught in their nets would not fall into a false faith.
–Cyril of Alexandria

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only, and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles…whence I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God?..And this is the rock of confession whereon the Church is built…that Christ must be not only named, but believed, the Son of God.
This faith is that which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven…The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the Father’s revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth…Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter’s mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God.
–Hilary of Poitiers

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him…he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters…And to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the ‘it’? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock.
–Origen

 

[Rogare]

Of course not, there were no bishops in the America continents back then. .

Of course there weren’t. Is there more to that pointless statement than meets the eye? Please try to keep the conversation serious rather than wasting space with asinine statements such as these.

From what you pointed out earlier, you are taking verses out of context of the rest of scripture, and that’s a pretext

Could you please demonstrate how the context changes the actual meaning of the verses I posted? The obligatory and banal reference to Matthew 16:18 has been supplied. Based on what I’ve demonstrated, Peter exercised no authority like what we see in later pontiffs. Therefore, it would appear as if Matthew 16:18 has been taken out of context from the rest of the New Testament which does NOT support that Catholic interpretation of this verse. You are reading current ecclesiology back into this verse rather than letting God’s Word speak for itself.

Unfortunately, claiming I’ve taken these verses out of context doesn’t substitute as a serious interaction with the text. I would prefer you use a more compelling argument than a vacuous statement such as that. I am not trying to be ugly; if I’m going to submit to Rome’s authority, I need a little more than one verse that contradicts what we see actually occurring in the New Testament under the Roman interpretation.

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Might I ask for your religious belief, Rogare?

Figures, I post a bunch of links and then we get bombarded by a bunch of quotes from Fathers that supposedly run against Catholic doctrine. That’s what I get for just throwing links into the discussion without any personal (name removed by moderator)ut.

While my American Continent comment was meant to elicit a humorous response, the gist is that you didn’t respond to my statement that all developments have been fitting. Certainly The bishops didn’t vote on Peter’s successor, but now our Cardinals do. It’s an appropriate growth.

1. In Acts 8:14, he is sent by the other apostles to Samaria. He exercises no authority here and submits to the other apostles.

The Apostles, which he is a part of, decided that he should go. He was involved in the decision.

1. In Acts 15, Peter is involved in the council being held in Jerusalem. Here, he speaks, but rather than being the final authority, Paul and Barnabas also offer their experience. It seems quite likely (v. 13) that James is the authority here.

Looks like to me that James has a bit of authority since this is the council of Jerusalem, in Jerusalem, where James was the bishop?

1. In Romans 16, no mention whatsoever is made of Peter as Paul addresses those at the Church.

What’s the need of bringing up Peter? Or the significance of not?

1. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he rebuked Peter for his actions.

Do not our leaders today make blunders? This was a wrong thing to discriminate, but it was not a teaching, rather a simply wrong action by Peter.

1. In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul declares that nobody supported him during a trial in Rome. In fact, the only person that sought out was Onesiphorus. He had come to Rome and searched for Paul until he had found him (cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18). One would imagine that Pope Peter would have come to Paul’s aid in Rome.

Yes, because Peter must be foremost on everyone’s lips, lest we forget him. The lack of mentioning Peter does not constitute a lack of importance on Peter.

1. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder among elders. There is no instance of him being referred to as anything other than an elder and he never exercises any authority greater than that of the other apostles

Peter is an elder, and his authority is not the subject in this text.

So I gave some off-the-cuff answers to your verses, happy Friday.

 

[DCNBILL]

Of course there weren’t. Is there more to that pointless statement than meets the eye? Please try to keep the conversation serious rather than wasting space with asinine statements such as these.

Could you please demonstrate how the context changes the actual meaning of the verses I posted? The obligatory and banal reference to Matthew 16:18 has been supplied. Based on what I’ve demonstrated, Peter exercised no authority like what we see in later pontiffs. Therefore, it would appear as if Matthew 16:18 has been taken out of context from the rest of the New Testament which does NOT support that Catholic interpretation of this verse. You are reading current ecclesiology back into this verse rather than letting God’s Word speak for itself.

Unfortunately, claiming I’ve taken these verses out of context doesn’t substitute as a serious interaction with the text. I would prefer you use a more compelling argument than a vacuous statement such as that. I am not trying to be ugly; if I’m going to submit to Rome’s authority, I need a little more than one verse that contradicts what we see actually occurring in the New Testament under the Roman interpretation.

Please note forum rules concerning charity in posting.:tsktsk:

 

[Dave_B]

Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times in the NT. …primacy of Peter… does that say it all.

 

[Redratfish]

Allow me to also quote some Fathers:

I had to take out the unbold text to be able to respond

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.
–Augustine

Keep in mind, these are people and their opinions. Yes, they are Church fathers, but they can have opinions that can be wrong as well. But, assuming Peter’s faith is the rock, I fail to see your point. Whether the Church is based on Peter’s faith, or his humanity, the fact is, it is based upon Peter. Your highlighted quote itself says that the Church is recognized in Peter. In the same way, Peter is seen as the head of the Church.

** He denied not to His disciple the grace of this name; that he should be Peter, because he has from the rock (petra) the solidity of constancy, the firmness of faith. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock! Do not seek the rock outside of yourself, but within yourself! Your rock is your deed, your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If you are a rock, you will be in the Church, because the Church is on a rock. If you are in the Church the gates of hell will not prevail against you…He who has conquered the flesh is a foundation of the Church;**
–Ambrose

So Ambrose is using a metaphor, saying that we should try be like Peter ( Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock!) The key word is try. Ambrose talks about how by being a rock, you are supporting your house, your faith, ect. Faith is the foundation of a Church, children can tell you this. Ambrose doesn’t say that we are the rock Christ built his Church on though. Our rocks are laid upon THE ROCK. Your highlighted part even says that if you are a rock, you will be IN the Church. Not head or lead the Church. In. I have the feeling someone could say something about (petra) as I do not know what that means I admit.

Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession.
–John Chrysost

As before, whether it is his faith, or his humanity, it is Peter’s faith that is the Rock.

I will reply to your other quotes later

 

[Tomster]

Well, let’s look at the Biblical record regarding Peter’s influence:

1. In Acts 8:14, he is sent by the other apostles to Samaria. He exercises no authority here and submits to the other apostles.
2. In Acts 15, Peter is involved in the council being held in Jerusalem. Here, he speaks, but rather than being the final authority, Paul and Barnabas also offer their experience. It seems quite likely (v. 13) that James is the authority here.
3. In Romans 16, no mention whatsoever is made of Peter as Paul addresses those at the Church.
4. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he rebuked Peter for his actions.
5. In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul declares that nobody supported him during a trial in Rome. In fact, the only person that sought out was Onesiphorus. He had come to Rome and searched for Paul until he had found him (cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18). One would imagine that Pope Peter would have come to Paul’s aid in Rome.
6. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder among elders. There is no instance of him being referred to as anything other than an elder and he never exercises any authority greater than that of the other apostles.

Based on what we see here, he was a pretty impotent “Vicar of Christ.”

A complete picture of Peter in the New Testament must take into account the narratives that betray his weakness and sinfulness. Closely associated with each of the Petrine texts describing Peter’s greatness is a text recalling his frailty. Simon Peter fulfilled his ministry in the fullness of a humanity in need of mercy. For all the prominence the evangelists give to Peter, they do not ignore his fragile faith, denials, and the biting rebukes received from Jesus. The fact that the tradition recalls these memories so straightfowardly testifies convincingly in favor of accepting that these accounts record events from Jesus’ ministry and a post-resurrection appearance. They confirm Peter’s foundational role in the Church, without in any way annulling or diminishing his authority. Because Christ had transformed Simon into the Rock for his community, the record of his failures does not undermine that role. Instead, it witnesses to the power of Jesus’ prayer for Peter. Convinced that Jesus had chosen Peter for a special ministry, the evangelists can serenely recall his dark moments.

 

[Tomster]

Hi. My question is…

How great was St. Peter’s influence as vicar of Christ? We know he was of course an apostle, and style him Prince of the Apostles for having been given the keys of Heaven and been made the rock upon which is Christ’s Church. We have no doubt that he was indeed the first pope and that this office was created by Jesus. He traveled around the Roman Empire, eventually ending up in Rome and becoming the capital’s bishop. We also know that he wrote letters to Christians, some of which are in our bibles today. But beyond that, what was the extent of his influence?

Did St. Peter exercise his authority over the other apostles and bishops (especially on doctrinal matters)? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m also aware that there was tension between St. Peter and St. Paul who was also travelling the empire to preach the Gospel. In this case, was St. Peter’s supremacy already recognized throughout the whole Church or was there already opposition from other Christians and bishops? Was his role as pope understood from the beginning or did it evolve over time, climaxing to the inquisition and crusades of the middle ages?

I’m asking these questions so that I can defend papal supremacy, primacy, and infallibility from a historical perspective.

Ave Maria! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Written by Luke, probably during the 80’s, the Acts of the Apostles narrates the story of early Christianity and its spread from Jerusalem to Rome. Without Peter, Luke could not have told this story of the Church’s beginnings. Acts tells us how Peter, after the death of Jesus, carries out the commission which he had received. The first half of Acts presents Peter as the community’s principle personage; the second half casts Paul in that role. Even after Paul’s evangelizing activity had begun, however, Luke takes pains to stress that his missionary work was made possible through Peter.

According to Acts, Peter both assumed and was accorded leadership in the early Church. He proved this leadership by being the “first” preacher, missionary, and healer. Primarily, however, he showed it by making decisions which demonstrated his authority as the keeper of the keys whose authority could bind and loose.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I hope this is just an unfortunate misstatement. Are you implying that your interpretation of Peter being the rock is the Gospel rather than the death and resurrection of Jesus? Furthermore, what have I said that gives you the impression that I ignore the Gospel?

There is a misunderstanding both with Catholics and others that the Pope makes all the decisions himself. As it was in the early church it is today. Before the Pope sits in the Chair of Peter and makes any infallible statement, matters are discussed at length.

So let me address your ‘proofs’

1. In Acts 8:14, he is sent by the other apostles to Samaria. He exercises no authority here and submits to the other apostles.

If anything, the fact that the disciples sent Peter and John, though they were not the ones working to convert the Samarians, tells us that both Peter and John were important leaders in the Church. Here we see Philip doing all the work, but yet Philip doesn’t lay on hands and give them the Holy Spirit. Philip is not Peter and John’s equal, apparently. Though it doesn’t clearly show that Peter is any greater in ‘rank’ than John.

1. In Acts 15, Peter is involved in the council being held in Jerusalem. Here, he speaks, but rather than being the final authority, Paul and Barnabas also offer their experience. It seems quite likely (v. 13) that James is the authority here.

Even to this day, if there is a matter of doctrine put before church elders, they form a council, and the Pope and all the members discuss it at length and provide evidence from scripture and from the Church Fathers for their stand on an issue. Every single one throughout history has been conducted the same way. The Pope does not sit on the Chair of Peter and make an infallible statement out of the blue. Popes, like Peter, have always been aloud to have their opinions and share them. Opinions are not infallible.

1. In Romans 16, no mention whatsoever is made of Peter as Paul addresses those at the Church.

Well since he’s talking about the church in Cenchreae, and Peter isn’t there, why would he say to greet Peter who isn’t there? Do you seriously think this is a complete list of the disciples in the whole Church?

1. In Galatians 2, Paul recounts an incident where he rebuked Peter for his actions.

This is a well known passage. Here’s a question: How do we know that Paul was correct and not Peter? Because Peter said that Paul was correct. Acts 15:1-12: Peter, at the Council, had already infallibly settled the issue! Paul properly “rebuked” Peter for not following Peter’s own teachings. Peter’s role at the Jerusalem Council, and the Council itself, help to clearly establish that what was involved in the “rebuke” incident was not Peter’s teaching but, at most, Peter’s failing to abide by what he already taught and believed.

1. In 2 Timothy 4:16, Paul declares that nobody supported him during a trial in Rome. In fact, the only person that sought out was Onesiphorus. He had come to Rome and searched for Paul until he had found him (cf. 2 Timothy 1:16-18). One would imagine that Pope Peter would have come to Paul’s aid in Rome.

Wouldn’t this be considered “Begging the Question”? - So we assume that Peter is not the leader of the Church because he didn’t show up? I guess this means that none of the other people mentioned in the Bible (like Romans 16) were really members of the Church because they didn’t come to Paul’s side during his trial. And you accuse us of circular reasoning.

1. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter refers to himself as a fellow elder among elders. There is no instance of him being referred to as anything other than an elder and he never exercises any authority greater than that of the other apostles.

The Pope is also a fellow elder among elders. Peter, being a humble leader “washes the feet” (John 13:1-17) of his fellow disciples just as Jesus taught. Isn’t Jesus Lord of us all, and yet He said we are his friends (Galatians 1) and brothers (Luke 8:21)? The very fact that Peter is the one writing this shows that he is exercising authority over the other elders in sending the message, making him the leader among the elders. Otherwise, why wouldn’t someone else have written this?

And if these proofs you set forth are what you hinge your assessment on that Peter is not a leader in light of the Gospel proofs that Jesus appointed him leader, then all one has to do is turn to Galatians 1, and see that it was Paul who went to Peter three years after his conversion, and that he didn’t see any of the other Apostles, except briefly he saw James. Now why would Paul take the time to seek out Peter and spend some time with him? Why Peter first and none of the others? Simple answer: Because Peter was considered the leader and authority of the Church. It wasn’t until AFTER his meeting with Peter that Paul became known in the Church. Also in Galatians 2, after fourteen years. Paul goes to Jerusalem to meet with the church leaders to make sure that the Gospel he was preaching was the same Gospel and that he wasn’t preaching any heresy. Again, this shows Paul submitting to the authority of the Church, and that the Church had a leadership, and he lists John, James, and Peter as being the ‘pillars’. So here is Peter being described as a leader by Paul, not a subordinate of some kind that is being sent here and there to do what others command him.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand" - Jesus Christ