The Epistles of St. Peter and the Papacy

[AgnosTheist]

But his title at that point was not the word “Pope.”

not only that, but the way he executed his leadership had very little in common to how the Pope leads Catholics.

 

[Donald45]

This is a question for our Catholic friends: Does St. Peter ever imply that he is the head of the Church in any of his epistles? If not, why?

There are hints of Peter’s authority and primacy in his epistles, but no bare statement on par with a contemporary news headline. First of all, as with the doctrine of the trinity, the papacy was simply assumed as common knowledge among Christians, as the writings of the early Church Fathers make clear. So Peter would have had no reason to explicitly outline his primacy as the earthly head of the Church, since it was a given, and therefore wasn’t an issue. St. James, although he was the bishop of Jerusalem, never bothered to mentioned that fact in his epistle either. Why not? because it was common knowledge, and would simply have been stating the obvious.

The Bible as a whole, however, certainly does present a view of Christ’s Church with St. Peter and his successors as its visible, earthly head.

Blessings,

Don
+T+

 

[Donald45]

No, he doesn’t; what he says is this:1 Peter 5:1 ~ “Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed…”
The apostles didn’t know anything about any pope.

Of course, this isn’t the only verse in Scripture that speaks about St. Peter. Indeed, Peter’s humility in this passage shouldn’t blind us to the substantial body of biblical evidence showing that he did receive a special apostolic preeminence and authority from the Lord Jesus Christ----evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore (if they’re aware of it at all), or try to explain away (as I certainly did when I was a Reformed Protestant).

In any case, what of the text from 1 Peter cited above? Does this statement contradict the notion of Peter’s unique authority in the early Church? Clearly not. St. Paul, like St. Peter, also exercised humilty when describing himself. Paul was by far the most prominent and prolific New Testament writer, responsible for about half of the content of the NT, yet he said, “I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle…” (1 Cor. 15:10). However, as with St. Peter, such examples of Paul’s humilty are balanced by statements of his authority: “Although I have the full right to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love” (Philemon 8-9; cf. 1 Thess. 2:7). Likewise, and to an even greater extent, with St. Peter. Peter referring to himself as “a fellow bishop” no more contradicts his status as Pope than does the American president’s use of the phrase “my fellow Americans” equate to a denial of his status as commander in chief. The concepts are in no way mutually exclusive.

In the end, unfortunately, your use of Scripture is extremely selective, and ignores a virtual mountain of biblical evidence which flatly contradicts your position.

God bless,

Don
+T+

 

[mercygate]

I don’t mind reading the epistles myself, but I’d like to know how many times Peter implies that he is the head of the Church in his epistles.

Why would that be critical to Petrine primacy?

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus’ own words aren’t enough for you?

 

[mercygate]

No, he doesn’t; what he says is this:1 Peter 5:1

Therefore, I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed,

2 John 1

The elder to the chosen lady and her children, whom I love in truth; and not only I, but also all who know the truth,

3 John 1

The elder to the beloved Gaius, whom I love in truth.
The apostles didn’t know anything about any pope.

You are being narrowly literalistic here. The Pope is an elder (we get the word “priest” from the Greek word for elder). Pope John Paul II often spoke of himself as a priest. All the elders were elders: The bishop was (and is) “the head elder around here.” The Pope is the head elder of all the other elders. To say that Peter wasn’t the Pope because he calls himself an elder is to say nothing at all.

Catholic theology holds that the fullness of the priesthood resides in the bishop. The pope is just a bishop. His priesthood is not qualitatively different from that of any other bishop. His position enjoys jurisdictional privileges and the special promise of the Keys, which the Lord gave to no other Apostle.

If you ask me, demonstrating that Peter does NOT hold the primacy among the Apostles is something that cannot be done according to the witness of Scripture.

 

[mercygate]

not only that, but the way he executed his leadership had very little in common to how the Pope leads Catholics.

Of course not. You can’t manage a ship that holds a billion people the same way you manage a rowboat. That doesn’t change the underlying principle.

 

[sandusky]

You are being narrowly literalistic here. The Pope is an elder (we get the word “priest” from the Greek word for elder). Pope John Paul II often spoke of himself as a priest. All the elders were elders: The bishop was (and is) “the head elder around here.” The Pope is the head elder of all the other elders. To say that Peter wasn’t the Pope because he calls himself an elder is to say nothing at all.

Of course.

And, yet, I’m the only one who has answered the OP, as asked.

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

I don’t think there is a list in the Catechism. I could rattle some off the top of my head like you are rattling off things you don’t agree with about the Catholic Church.

Can you show me where in the Bible is the list of books that are supposed to be in the Bible? I assume you are a sola scripturaist. Sorry, if I’m wrong. Looks like this thread is getting de-railed early on, huh?

I’m guessing I hit a nerve here. It always seems to happen when a non-Catholic starts asking questions about Catholic teachings, even when it’s done respectfully.

God stated that he would preserve his word, so I’m guessing that scripture is reliable.

I don’t mind tradition, as long as it doesn’t conflict with scripture. Does scripture offend you?

 

[ShortyLaRock_82]

Why would that be critical to Petrine primacy?

The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus’ own words aren’t enough for you?

It just seems to me that his role as Pope would be more obvious in the epistles. Paul, Jude, and James all stated what roles they held in their epistles.

 

[mercygate]

It just seems to me that his role as Pope would be more obvious in the epistles. Paul, Jude, and James all stated what roles they held in their epistles.

So? All of them were elders. Did Peter to Paul? The primacy of Peter is a slam-dunk no-brainer from the Gospels and Acts, as well as from that toss-off comment in Galatians about ‘running in vain.’ It takes a lot more effort to deny petrine primacy than to support it.

The primacy of Peter develops into a more defined role under his successors through the vicissitudes of history. Such a development makes perfect sense in light of Scripture. In fact, for the papacy NOT to have become more defined would have been a sign that Jesus was backing out on his promises.

I find that untenable.

 

[mercygate]

I’m guessing I hit a nerve here. It always seems to happen when a non-Catholic starts asking questions about Catholic teachings, even when it’s done respectfully.

God stated that he would preserve his word, so I’m guessing that scripture is reliable.

I don’t mind tradition, as long as it doesn’t conflict with scripture. Does scripture offend you?

A Catholic finds a fundamental problem with your OP. The OP asks a single question. What about papacy in the Epistlels of Peter. For a Catholic, the question is not THE question. We take the whole Bible into consideration, and we do not clip one piece and pit it against another. So we would naturally go back to Jesus, to his promises and prophecies to Peter in Luke and Matthew, and to that walk on the beach in John. Then we look back at the OT and find the precursor of the promise of the Keys in Isaiah.

There is NOTHING in Catholic teaching that conflicts with Sacred Scripture. NOTHING.

And the question about the table of contents in the Bible asked by the previous poster is not just a testy Catholic “raw nerve.” You wouldn’t HAVE that Bible if the Catholic Church had not identified the table of contents for you it and handed it down to you intact.

So ask away about Catholic teachings. We have nothing to hide. You have everything to gain.

 

[Lampo]

I’m guessing I hit a nerve here.

Not really.

It always seems to happen when a non-Catholic starts asking questions about Catholic teachings, even when it’s done respectfully.

Not in this case.

God stated that he would preserve his word, so I’m guessing that scripture is reliable.

This might be my sincere ignorance, but where did He say this? I’d like to read that in context.

I don’t mind tradition, as long as it doesn’t conflict with scripture.

Rest assured. It doesn’t.

Does scripture offend you?

No. Neither does Sacred Oral Tradition.

I’m very interested in seeing where Jesus says, “Write everything down that I say and do. Compile it into a book and give to everyone to interpret for themselves.” Is that what you mean when you say, “God stated that he would preserve his word…”?

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

I’m very interested in seeing where Jesus says, “Write everything down that I say and do. Compile it into a book and give to everyone to interpret for themselves.”

Your ”raw nerve” is showing.

Here’s a quote from Augustine:You ought to notice particularly and store in your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.It’s clear that Augustine believed that God directed the writers of the NT to write; how is it that you miss that?

The fact that we have a written NT is proof enough that God intended for it to be; otherwise, we wouldn’t have it; wouldn’t you agree?

 

[Lampo]

Your ”raw nerve” is showing.

I don’t feel it being exposed.

Here’s a quote from Augustine:You ought to notice particularly and store I your memory that God wanted to lay a firm foundation in the Scriptures against treacherous errors, a foundation against which no one dares to speak who would in any way be considered a Christian. For when He offered Himself to them to touch, this did not suffice Him unless He also confirmed the heart of the believers from the Scriptures, for He foresaw that the time would come when we would not have anything to touch but would have something to read.

Could you reference this quote from Augustin for me?

It’s clear that Augustine believed that God directed the writers of the NT to write; how is it that you miss that?

The Catholic Church agrees with this. I didn’t miss the fact that the Catholic Church determined what books were inspired.

The fact that we have a written NT is proof enough that God intended for it to be; otherwise, we wouldn’t have it; wouldn’t you agree?

We also have 33,000+ different Protestant denominations, which all disagree with each other on certain doctrines. Is that “proof enough that God intended for it to be”?

So is it safe to say that you don’t go by the Bible Alone since you are using a Church Father?

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

Could you reference this quote from Augustin for me?

In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. NPNF Series I, VII:469.

Lampo:

The Catholic Church agrees with this.

Forgive me; your question concerning Jesus and the writing of scripture indicated to me that you did not believe that God intended for there to be a written scripture.

Lampo:

We also have 33,000+ different Protestant denominations, which all disagree with each other on certain doctrines. Is that “proof enough that God intended for it to be”?

For those with a high view of God it is, yes.

Lampo:

So is it safe to say that you don’t go by the Bible Alone since you are using a Church Father?

What does quoting a Church Father have to do with Bible Alone?

 

[Lampo]

In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. NPNF Series I, VII:469.

j
Thanks.

Forgive me; your question concerning Jesus and the writing of scripture indicated to me that you did not believe that God intended for there to be a written scripture.

My question is for those who adhere to sola scriptura and my point being that without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible as we have it today. Who determined that “God intended for there to be a written scripture.”?

For those with a high view of God it is, yes.

What does that mean?

What does quoting a Church Father have to do with Bible Alone?

You are using something outside of Scripture. You should be able to use the “Bible Alone” to show where Jesus said to write down everything He said and did.

 

[Lampo]

In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. NPNF Series I, VII:469.

Forgive me; your question concerning Jesus and the writing of scripture indicated to me that you did not believe that God intended for there to be a written scripture.

For those with a high view of God it is, yes.

What does quoting a Church Father have to do with Bible Alone?

Augustine also said:

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. - Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

My question is for those who adhere to sola scriptura and my point being that without the Catholic Church, there would be no Bible as we have it today.

God is conspicuously absent in your thinking; isn’t He?

Lampo:

Who determined that “God intended for there to be a written scripture.”?

That would be God, of course; wouldn’t you agree?

Lampo:

What does that mean?

It means that those with a high view of God understand that nothing occurs apart from His will; therefore, if, as you claim, there are 33,000+ Christian denominations, then it is according to God’s purpose.

Those with a low view of God, engage in nail-biting, and hand-wringing concerning such things; they worry, believing that such things are out of control, rather than under the control of the sovereign God.

Lampo:

You are using something outside of Scripture. You should be able to use the “Bible Alone” to show where Jesus said to write down everything He said and did.

Then the misunderstanding is yours; nothing prohibits the one who subscribes to “Bible Alone” from using sources outside of the Bible.

 

[Lampo]

In Epistolam Johannis tractus, 2. NPNF Series I, VII:469.

I’m having great difficulty finding this writing of his. Can you point me towards it? Thanks.

 

[sandusky]

Lampo:

Augustine also said:

But I would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already moved me. - Contra epistolam Manichaei 5, 6: PL 42, 176.

He also said:Let those things be removed from our midst which we quote against each other not from divine canonical books but from elsewhere. Someone may perhaps ask: Why do you want to remove these things from the midst? Because I do not want the holy church proved by human documents, but by divine oracles.

De unitate ecclesiae, 3. (cited by Martin Chemnitz, *Examination of the Council of Trent, *Part I (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1971), p. 157.