Saint Peter as First Pope

[JonathonofOhio]

Cont:

–Cyprian
–Cyril of Alexandria
–Hilary of Poitiers
–Origen

I’d first like to clarify that Peter is a rock, and Jesus is The Rock. The argument that Petere is The Rock is incorrect. Peter is nothing with out Christ; same goes with anyone including the Pope. Jesus is the one who made Peter a rock, because of His faith, but not that Peter’s faith made him a rock, it was by the grace of God through Jesus Christ that he was made a rock. The lesson of Origin seems to be that all who belong to the one True Church are a rock, but this does not seem to go against the idea that Peter is considered a leader in the structure of the Church.

But, instead of copy and pasting this, please provide a source for your quotes as anyone can write something and attribute it to someone else. Do you have links to the texts on newadvent.org where we might be able to read these writings in context? Also, please provide the original source where you copied this from so that we might compare them. Despite what you might think, many of us on here listen to other views and opinions, because it helps us to understand our own beliefs more. Thank you.

 

[Bluegoat]

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

I’ve got to wonder why you sent me looking through all of these links to show me absolutely nothing new. That is, we don’t have much information about the OPs question.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

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.

Ave Maria! Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam!

Since this thread went slightly off from the OP’s actual question I’m going to post an answer, which actually repeats a little something I said in a previous post, but for simplification here is your answer OP:

Galatians 1 and 2: Paul visits Peter twice, the first time he only visited with Peter, and the 2nd time he visits he confirms with Peter, John, and James (called ‘pillars’) that he is preaching the Gospel correctly. He actually appeals to his readers that he is not preaching on his own authority, but on the authority of the Church, recognizing the leadership, and that the Church did not change anything or add to anything he was preaching, but recognized that Paul was preaching the truth.

As to the tension between Peter and Paul, there was no actual tension or division. As I have already said, Paul recognized the authority of the Church and Galatians 1 & 2 should quickly refute and division between them. But read Acts 15:1-12, in which Peter stands up before the counsel and makes the infallible statements to settle the matter Paul is discussing. Notice at the end all were quieted and the matter was no longer discussed? This is because Peter’s words were final, infallible, and the matter was settled (only heretics would continue to argue not recognizing the authority of the Church). The rebuke by Paul shows that a Pope can have his opinions and those opinions are not infallible. Since Peter made his opinion public, Paul publicly reminded him of the doctrine, which was his duty to do so.

 

[steve_b]

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.

Here is a conversation St Jerome was having with St Augustine on this very matter of Gal 2.

(all emphasis mine)

St Jerome responded to this charge of Paul rebuking Peter by observing that,

1. 
   *]Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   *]In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   *]Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
   
   Catch that? PaulrebukesPeter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
   
   St Jerome points out.
   
   “O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
   for hypocrasybecause he withdrew himself from the
   Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
   James, why are you, not withstanding your own
   doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
   Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
   
   Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you
   according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly starting with ch’s 3…. of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I’ve got to wonder why you sent me looking through all of these links to show me absolutely nothing new. That is, we don’t have much information about the OPs question.

Not to get into a whole thing here, but you did say "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. "

You were provided links with historical evidence that you admitted you were unaware of. If there is nothing new here, then obviously you are aware of the historical evidence and so you just refuse to accept it.

This pretty much reduces your position to Argument by Doggedness, which basically goes like this: “I looked over all your proof, and there is nothing I haven’t seen, so I don’t agree with you.” (as if your view would change had there been something new provided). Something that is already proven does not need new evidence.

 

[Bluegoat]

Not to get into a whole thing here, but you did say "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. "

You were provided links with historical evidence that you admitted you were unaware of. If there is nothing new here, then obviously you are aware of the historical evidence and so you just refuse to accept it.

This pretty much reduces your position to Argument by Doggedness, which basically goes like this: “I looked over all your proof, and there is nothing I haven’t seen, so I don’t agree with you.” (as if your view would change had there been something new provided). Something that is already proven does not need new evidence.

None of these said much at all about Peter’s time in Rome. They make comments in a more general way, but they aren’t what one would call historical information on the topic. A lot of them are comments on the nature of the papacy, which is a totally different kettle of fish, and then there were Biblical comments, which don’t fit the bill either.

I don’t even know of any Catholic scholars that claim that there is much historical information about Peter’s time in Rome.

 

[Bluegoat]

OP, you might find this book helpful: Papal Primacy

It discusses the way the understanding of the papacy has developed historically.

 

[StOwen]

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.

So you’re asking me to study your own argument for you rather than for you to present it to me? That’s not how debate works. Provide your counter-interpretation or admit defeat.

Ultimately, you will keep believing what you want to believe as long as you refuse to consider other options

I consider other options when they are presented to me. Just because they aren’t convincing doesn’t mean I don’t consider them.

or give up your flawed devotion to sola ecclesia.

Church alone? Seriously? Whatever.

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.

In that passage there is no immediate response from the disciples but from later parts of the NT we can see that Peter emerged as the leader of the Apostles.

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?

I’m so sorry for using a capital ‘G’ but next time you could try to resist making a petty comment like that.

Furthermore, what have I said that gives you the impression that I ignore the Gospel?

At first you made no reference to the gospels and now you are trying to use non-canonical writings to disprove the gospels.

Maybe you can answer this: why did Jesus rename Simon to Peter? The rock is both Peter and his faith. When Peter was martyred the Church didn’t lose its eternal foundation.

 

[The_Scott]

One must remember, also, that papal primacy did not come about out of nothing. It gradually increased throughout the history of the Church – as the structure of the Church became more defined, papal primacy did thus too.

Does that mean that papal primacy is a man-made invention? Of course not; it just didn’t spring out fully-formed from a fragmented Christianity.

 

[The_Scott]

I’m just going to copy/paste what I have on a word document. It’s incomplete, obviously, but it does give a start to the scriptural basis of Peter’s leadership.

Note: Simon called Peter was the first Pope for the Catholic Church, and was appointed personally by Christ Himself. There are instances (below) where Peter is listed first among the Twelve Apostles, or is given permission where others are denied.

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” – Matthew 16: 17-19

Note: “Peter”, in Greek, is Petros, while “rock” in Greek is petra. In Aramaic, “rock” is Cephas, and in several instances (below) is Peter called Cephas as a title.

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas” (which is translated Peter). – John 1:42

[Christ said to Simon called Peter:] "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and he one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” – Luke 10:16

And He allowed no one to accompany Him, except Peter and James and John the brother of James. – Mark 5:37

Six days later Jesus took with Him Peter and James and John his brother, and led them up on a high mountain by themselves [for the transfiguration]. – Matthew 17:1

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." – Luke 22: 31-32

Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” – Matthew 19: 27

Note: Notice that, above, Peter is speaking as a representative (Vicar) of the Twelve.

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.” – John 21: 15-17

[To Simon Peter, Jesus said:] “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." – John 21:18

Note: The above quote is, more than likely, a prophecy for the traditional death of St. Peter. Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, circa 60 AD.

So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!” - Luke 24:33-34
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said,… - Acts 1:14
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice, and proclaimed to them, "You who are Jews, indeed all of you staying in Jerusalem. Let this be known to you, and listen to my words.” – Acts 2:14

Acts 2:41 - received first converts
Acts 3:6-7 - performed first miracle after Pentecost
Acts 5:1-11 - inflicted first punishment: Ananias & Saphira
Acts 8:21 - excommunicated first heretic, Simon Magnus
Acts 10:44-46 - received revelation to admit Gentiles into Church
Acts 15:7 - led first council in Jerusalem
Acts 15:19 - pronounces first dogmatic decision
Gal 1:18 - after conversion, Paul visits chief Apostle
Peter’s name always heads list of Apostles: Mt 10;14; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
“Peter and his companions” Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7
Spoke for Apostles - Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 8:45; 12:41; Jn 6:69

 

[JonathonofOhio]

None of these said much at all about Peter’s time in Rome. They make comments in a more general way, but they aren’t what one would call historical information on the topic. A lot of them are comments on the nature of the papacy, which is a totally different kettle of fish, and then there were Biblical comments, which don’t fit the bill either.

I don’t even know of any Catholic scholars that claim that there is much historical information about Peter’s time in Rome.

Well you are correct that there is not a lot to go on except oral tradition and general statements written by some of the early church members. Those links that were given have a lot of statements showing that early church members viewed Peter as being a leader of the Church…I didn’t go through them all, because I didn’t have the time and maybe the poster did give you too much to go through.

Considering they did not call the person holding the office ‘pope’, you are not going to find any direct comment about it in early church writings. However, there is enough evidence in the bible alone to show that the early church did have a structure, and that there were leaders in the church, and the leaders taught from the top down how to interpret the scriptures so that heresy could be kept under control. And there is plenty in there showing Peter as being the chief elder of the early Church.

Sadly, there is very little known about some of the early popes. We only know their names and bits of information about them because few writings survive from that time period. But even if there was a document or two from the early church that expressly said, “Peter, the Pope” people still wouldn’t believe it anyway.

 

[Bluegoat]

Well you are correct that there is not a lot to go on except oral tradition and general statements written by some of the early church members. Those links that were given have a lot of statements showing that early church members viewed Peter as being a leader of the Church…I didn’t go through them all, because I didn’t have the time and maybe the poster did give you too much to go through.

Considering they did not call the person holding the office ‘pope’, you are not going to find any direct comment about it in early church writings. However, there is enough evidence in the bible alone to show that the early church did have a structure, and that there were leaders in the church, and the leaders taught from the top down how to interpret the scriptures so that heresy could be kept under control. And there is plenty in there showing Peter as being the chief elder of the early Church.

Sadly, there is very little known about some of the early popes. We only know their names and bits of information about them because few writings survive from that time period. But even if there was a document or two from the early church that expressly said, “Peter, the Pope” people still wouldn’t believe it anyway.

Thank you. All I wanted to point out to the OP is that there is very little historical information on this topic.

 

[Bilbo_Baggins_1]

Pardon the lengthy quoting, the topic intrigued me and I guess I missed it by a few days.

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.

I mean little to no disrespect with this comment, but supposing that Peter was doing those things out of regard for what Jesus taught, why is this not something we today would expect in relation to the Vicar of Christ and to the governing members of the church in this day and age?

Certainly The bishops didn’t vote on Peter’s successor, but now our Cardinals do. It’s an appropriate growth.

Just a question because it intrigued me, why is this an appropriate growth?

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.

Jesus is mentioned over 1200 times and the apostles are mentioned only 285 times in the NT …primacy of Christ…

But read Acts 15:1-12, in which Peter stands up before the counsel and makes the infallible statements to settle the matter Paul is discussing. Notice at the end all were quieted and the matter was no longer discussed? This is because Peter’s words were final, infallible, and the matter was settled (only heretics would continue to argue not recognizing the authority of the Church). The rebuke by Paul shows that a Pope can have his opinions and those opinions are not infallible. Since Peter made his opinion public, Paul publicly reminded him of the doctrine, which was his duty to do so.

I’m not arguing that what Peter spoke was not correct, of sound doctrine, and inherently infallible as revealed by the Holy Spirit. However, I have the slightest bit of reservation agreeing that the silence came about because everyone was thinking, “Oh, that was an infallible statement I can’t argue against that and must be quiet.” I think any teacher could tell you that if in the middle of all of your students arguing or talking at the same time, you were to stand up and say something forcibly, you would have a prevailing silence that follows. My gut reaction to this verse is that this is what occurred. Again not saying anything against the statement itself.

 

[Bilbo_Baggins_1]

I’m just going to copy/paste what I have on a word document. It’s incomplete, obviously, but it does give a start to the scriptural basis of Peter’s leadership.

Note: Simon called Peter was the first Pope for the Catholic Church, and was appointed personally by Christ Himself. There are instances (below) where Peter is listed first among the Twelve Apostles, or is given permission where others are denied.

I just want to point out that Peter was not named/called/considered the first pope of any church until the 6th century, also there is obviously some debate on the appointment. As to the permission he is given, yes he is given permission where others aren’t, but it is rarely (if ever?) exclusive permission. So that does not necessarily imply any exclusive leadership permission of Peter.

[Christ said to Simon called Peter:] "The one who listens to you listens to Me, and he one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.” – Luke 10:16

I feel I must call you out on this. Christ did not say this specifically to Simon called Peter, though he may very well have been in the group, but to the 72, or 70 depending on your translation, disciples that He sent out into the cities before Him. Peter is in no way referenced in this verse.

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat; but I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and you, when once you have turned again, strengthen your brothers." – Luke 22: 31-32

If you finish out the passage, it goes on to show that Jesus is singling him out to say that he will deny Christ three times. Again this does not reflect any leadership characteristic. You could say that Judas was singled out as well when Christ named him His betrayer.

In regards to the “strengthen your brothers”, in my reading of the passage Peter, though falling to the temptation of the devil and denying Jesus, would now have a model of character with which to strengthen his brothers in Christ. Even one who had denied knowing Christ could go on to again disciple others. To just take a glance at another apostle, a similar statement (though obviously less grave) could be made towards Matthew, a tax collector who went on to become a disciple.

Then Peter said to him in reply, “We have given up everything and followed you. What will there be for us?” – Matthew 19: 27

Note: Notice that, above, Peter is speaking as a representative (Vicar) of the Twelve.

In my own personal reading of the Gospels, I have always found Peter to have a personality with a desire to speak. Not that this is a bad thing. It is obviously one of his spiritual gifts as shown by the fruits of his speeches and preaching. However when I read this verse I see it less of as Peter being designated to speak for the others, as much as Peter has the personality that he would have felt an urge to speak up and say that he felt that he as well as the others had given everything to follow. This to me isn’t a case of Peter being the chosen representative of the apostles, though I earnestly believe that they shared his sentiments.

[To Simon Peter, Jesus said:] “Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go." – John 21:18

Note: The above quote is, more than likely, a prophecy for the traditional death of St. Peter. Peter was crucified upside-down in Rome, circa 60 AD.

If you finish off the verse, "Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!” you don’t have to suppose anything. It does make reference to his death. I don’t really see how this strengthens your argument other than that Peter and Jesus were talking alone together, which I don’t see as being unusual since they obviously had a close relationship and Peter had just seen Jesus die a few days earlier. Now he was back, obviously Peter would have wanted to spend time with Him.

I also just want to say one thing that I feel is often overlooked. Might the perception of primacy that Peter is given perhaps have come from the fact that he was among the first of the apostles called and had been following Jesus the longest of them all. In the culture of the time might that not have played a factor in the deference that the others sometimes awarded him? Just a thought that I’ve had.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I’m not arguing that what Peter spoke was not correct, of sound doctrine, and inherently infallible as revealed by the Holy Spirit. However, I have the slightest bit of reservation agreeing that the silence came about because everyone was thinking, “Oh, that was an infallible statement I can’t argue against that and must be quiet.” I think any teacher could tell you that if in the middle of all of your students arguing or talking at the same time, you were to stand up and say something forcibly, you would have a prevailing silence that follows. My gut reaction to this verse is that this is what occurred. Again not saying anything against the statement itself.

You just said so yourself ‘inherently infallible as revealed by the Holy Spirit’. When the Pope makes an infallible statement, that is the Holy Spirit talking through him. The question is how did everyone know that what Peter said was infallible? How did everyone know Peter was right or it was the Holy Spirit speaking and not Peter? Did his eyes glow or something? Or was it just that he spoke the words plainly with some authoritative tone in his voice? If I came to you and spoke with authority about the Catholic Church, would that make you silent and convert? No. Surely others spoke plainly and boldly too, sharing their opinions prior to Peter standing up. From the text it is plain to see that Peter made the final decision on the doctrine by the power of the Holy Spirit. No one after hearing it stood up and said, “but my gut feeling tells me otherwise, so I’m going to do my own thing, Peter.”…no, they were silent, because they trusted in God, and not their own gut feelings.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

I also just want to say one thing that I feel is often overlooked. Might the perception of primacy that Peter is given perhaps have come from the fact that he was among the first of the apostles called and had been following Jesus the longest of them all. In the culture of the time might that not have played a factor in the deference that the others sometimes awarded him? Just a thought that I’ve had.

One thing we must understand is that Jesus, being God, did not pick the disciples at random. He chose them because he already knew them. He, being God, created them, and He selected Simon Peter out of them first, not by chance, but because He intended it to be that way.

Furthermore, when Jesus established his Church, he announced he was establishing a New Covenant with man. Just as in the first covenant God changed Abrams name to Abraham and made him a father of many, so He changed Simon’s name to Peter and made him a shepherd over his flock.

Jesus was the first shepherd, and left Peter in charge when He left. This and apostolic succession are so plainly obvious in the bible, it is only by doggedness that anyone opposes it.

Are you a victim of a ‘Poisoning the Wells’ argument?..It seems that someone you came to trust in told you that there never was a Pope and that the Catholic Church made it up, and that nothing in the bible show Peter as being a ‘pope’. Now whenever you are presented with any evidence to the contrary you are biased towards it and refuse to accept it. Or are you just playing ‘devil’s advocate’ here?

 

[TimothyH]

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.

On the contrary, they understood exactly what Jesus meant.

Granting one the keys to the kingdom was a political appointment to the office of Prime Minister. When a monarch made someone “Lord over his house”, he would literally give him the keys to the treasury from which he could pay laborers, buy provisions, raise armies and generally run the day to day affairs of the kingdom on behalf of the King.

Jesus’ insistence that they to “tell no one that he was the Messiah” in verse 20 is evidence that the disciples undersood the civil and political meaining of his statement. In a political environment where Roman subjects had to swear an oath of alliegiance to the emperor, granting the “keys to the kingdom” to another was tantamount to setting up your own monarchy and would have likely resulted in execution for treason against the empire.

The Gosples can’t be read outside of the social, political, economic and religious context under which they were written and under which their intended audience operated. Granting the “Keys to the Kingdom” was an unambigousu political statement which those who lived under monarchies would have understood immediatley. To deny it is to deny history.

-Tim-

 

[ESMDHokie77]

Bilbo, I say that the process we use to determine new popes now is appropriate and developed fittingly, because from the mustard seed of the early Church, the institution with the foundation to conduct formal proceedings/elections came to fruition. The process for determining the next pope is not included in the deposit of faith, and so it has been up to the authority of the Church to determine how it should be conducted. Would you agree? Or would you like to argue for the inappropriateness of it?

 

[TimothyH]

One must remember, also, that papal primacy did not come about out of nothing. It gradually increased throughout the history of the Church – as the structure of the Church became more defined, papal primacy did thus too.

Does that mean that papal primacy is a man-made invention? Of course not; it just didn’t spring out fully-formed from a fragmented Christianity.

This is an extremely important point.

Having a visible hierarchy, lines of communication, Church buildings, offices, and stading at the balcony in the papal tiara wasn’t that great of an idea during the persecution. Church hierarchy and organizaiton in general was much more subdued prior to legalization of Christianty in the Roman empire.

-Tim-