THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

EWTN ^ | November 1998 | Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger & Bishop Tarcisio Bertone

[tenn2005]

That would be because most of us read the entire Bible. Not just the parts excerpted by the RCC.

[tenn2005]

Actually you have a problem here. Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles and Peter the apostle to the Jews. It was paul who went to Rome. We know this from the Bible. Peters death in Rome, if true, comes only from RCC tradition

[RobbyS]

The governmental authority of the pope of Rome is a historical development, partly in response to the diminution of patriarchal authority in the East, partly in response to the disappearance of imperial authority in Italy and elsewhere. Antioch and Alexandria fell under Muslim rule, which gradually sapped the vigor of each. Much the same happened to Constantinople. Moscovy apppeared, of course as the "Third Rome," and as the successor state of Byzantium. much as the German Empire was that of the western Roman Empire. The papacy, of course had suffered a rough patch at the same time as Byzantium reached its high point after fending off the Arabs. It had recovered, however, which as much as anything explains the clash with Constantinople. Manzikert was the 9/11 of the time; it changed everything eventually. The Turkish invasion, the struggle for power between Rome and the German emperor, and New Rome's decline ended in disaster for all parties. The union of East and West was never in the cards after the Fourth Crusade.

[RobbyS]

Be that as it may, the pope doesn’t want to be put in that position. The strength of the papacy is its right to choose, or at least ratify the choice of bishops. That went away in the Catholic states during the Reformation and has only been regained since the French Revolution. The basic claim is that true catholicity depends on union with Rome.

[TexConfederate1861]

And that is EXACTLY my point. It is developmental, but not from the ancient church.

[TexConfederate1861]

The Orthodox position on possible reunion is simple:

The pope can retain his authority over the Western Church, but, his relationship with the rest would be as primus inter pares. The Roman Church has already admitted the mistake in adding the filioque, so that is one stumbling block that is removed.

[Rutles4Ever]

Luke spent a great deal of time traveling with Paul. It’s only logical that his post-Ascension history would be strongly focused on Paul and whatever events he witnessed with his own eyes. The fact that he asserts the predominance of Peter at all is testament to its truth. If there were any inkling that Paul were of greater stature, why would Luke, who was a companion of Paul, prop up Peter?

Acts is certainly a fragmentary book. Luke took what he was told by Paul about his personal conversion and his travels thereafter, and made that a great part of the book. The pre-Paul history was pieced together through eyewitness accounts and tradition in the nascent Church. If Peter did not have primacy, how would his primacy have been conveyed to Luke for the purpose of his history? He certainly wouldn’t make it up - especially as a companion of Paul.

[Rutles4Ever]

Additionally, Luke also traveled with John (called Mark), who was Peter’s “secretary”, and would eventually write the Gospel of his name. Peter’s position in the Church was well known to Luke and Paul, both. At the least, Paul, himself, would have hotly disputed the primacy of Peter. Yet, nowhere does this occur.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Yet, nowhere does this occur.

But Paul doesn't declare Peter's primacy anywhere either, does he?

Becky

[Rutles4Ever]

He doesn’t declare his writings to be canonical Scripture, either. If you want to apply silence as “contradiction”, then Paul’s writings are not inspired.

Because Paul doesn’t speak of the Trinitarian nature of God, does that mean it wasn’t believed?

[Rutles4Ever]

Additionally, given that the Church Fathers speak abundantly of Peter’s primacy, and without any recorded dispute among them over this belief, it’s illogical to think that Paul’s silence is a refutation. There’s nothing that draws the ire of more people than a disputed power grab. Someone among the Church patricians, the Apostles, the elders, bishops, etc. - someone would have raised a storm. So,

1. If the early Church - as historical documents prove - believed the primacy of Peter, without evidence of any opposition, then his primacy was undisputed. That’s the only conclusion that can be arrived at.

2. If Paul did not affirm this in his writings, it could have certainly been because this was already an accepted reality which required no rumination or exposition on his part. e.g. Why doesn’t Paul write to the churches about Jesus birth in Bethlehem? Obviously because it wasn’t in dispute. It was an accepted fact and had nothing to do with the focus of his writings - which was to correct and encourage these various church communities.

[Uncle Chip]

Additionally, given that the Church Fathers speak abundantly of Peter’s primacy

Just how abundantly did the church fathers in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries speak on the primacy of Peter??? Who is the first to declare it unequivocably???

[OLD REGGIE]

I think it's a bit more than maybe. He says he's at Babylon, and Rev 17 shows that Babylon was identified by John as Rome. I think the best way to approach this Scripturally is to assume Peter means Rome unless and until contrary evidence is found.

Are you certain concerning Revelation 17?

And you're right, he doesn't say anything about primacy in his epistle. We get that from other texts.

Yes, but not from Scripture.

It is not meaningless at all...I thought you were implying that if Peter in Rome was not Scriptural, then I had no basis for saying it. My apologies that I misrepresented your position.

No apology necessary for a simple misunderstanding. :)

I am not among those who insist Peter never was in Rome. There is simply no proof one way or the other.

I do claim; however, that Peter never exercised or even claimed Primacy in any fashion.

Legend is not Scripture.

[OLD REGGIE]

Wow, it’s nice to hear from you all again:) No we were not flooded. Never comes close here at the house.

Mack and I are fine, same ole, same ole:)

How are you?

Becky

I'm glad you were not affected by the floods but it is a terrible thing for those who were.

Actually, I have been pretty good for an old geezer who constantly falls. I haven't been hospitalized for an accident or some silly thing like a heart attack in the last few years and that's a good sign.

I did have my fourth hernia repair (outpatient) a few months ago but, being a young, vigorous, healthy individual, it healed quickly and without complication.

Nice to hear from you again.

Reggie

[Rutles4Ever]

The first to declare it unequivocally was St. John, who wrote (long after Peter's death) on his commission from Jesus in Matthew 8:16.

Church Fathers who were never disputed in their assertions during the first three centuries:

1. "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’" [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28]
-- Clement of Alexandria (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

2. "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect"
-- Clement (Letter of Clement to James [A.D. 221]).

3. "Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .’"
—Tertullian, On the Prescription against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200)

4. ""[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens"
-- Origen (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

5. "By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established."
—Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235)

6. "‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . It is on him that he builds the Church and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. . . . If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"
—Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251)

And where was the uproar after this declaration?:

"We have considered that it ought be announced that although all the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by conciliar decisions of other churches but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.’ . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither the stain nor blemish nor anything like it."
—Pope Damasus, Decree of Damasus, 3 (A.D. 382)

Additionally, in A.D. 96, the Church in Corinth was in a crisis of schism. Who did they ask to settle the matter? Clement, Bishop of Rome. And when he writes back, what does he do? He apologizes for not intevening before their formal request. Why would he intervene if he didn't have the authority to decide the matter?

Again, why didn't Corinth turn to a living Apostle, St. John, who was living much closer in Ephesus? Because of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

These statements can't be contradicted or explained away. They all declare that Rome is the seat of the Church, and Peter its visible head. It's illogical to presume that it took 1500 years to find someone with a religious background who cared enough to challenge the primacy of Rome if it was an illicit power grab in the first place. And the only power grab that occured came at the hands of Emperor Constantius in 476 A.D., who thought he had the power to appoint patriarchs at Constantinople even though he was a secular Emperor - in this case, an Arian heretic - leading to the split with Rome.

[Uncle Chip]

The first to declare it unequivocally was St. John, who wrote (long after Peter's death) on his commission from Jesus in Matthew 8:16.

I'm not familiar with anything John wrote on this subject. Is this one of those apocryphal books???

1. "[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’" [Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28] -- Clement of Alexandria (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]). 2. "Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was, by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" -- Clement (Letter of Clement to James [A.D. 221]). 3. "Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .’" —Tertullian, On the Prescription against the Heretics, 22 (c. A.D. 200) 4. ""[I]f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens" -- Origen (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]). 5. "By this Spirit Peter spake that blessed word, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ By this Spirit the rock of the Church was established." —Hippolytus, Discourse on the Holy Theophany, 9 (ante A.D. 235) 6. "‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . It is on him that he builds the Church and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness. . . . If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?" —Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251)

So what you are saying with the above 6 quotes is that there is no evidence that anyone claimed the primacy of Peter for 200 years after his death and the first to write about it is Clement of Alexandria who himself had a difficult time determining fact from fiction.

And these are all late dates --- 200 years after the supposed fact. Why is there nothing from Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, a credible church father in Rome in the first or second century.

Something as important as the primacy of Peter is in every catechism today, but no one knew about it for 200 years back then --- and those that originate it are from Alexandria. Surely if it was the foundation of the church in Rome, it should have been down in writing somewhere atleast in Rome --- but none declare it until Clement of Alexandria and Origen, whose theological reputations are less than laudable.

Again, why didn't Corinth turn to a living Apostle, St. John, who was living much closer in Ephesus? Because of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Nonsense --- Clement never declared such primacy and only wrote as an independent 3rd party in the Corinth dispute not a Petrine primate.

These statements can't be contradicted or explained away.

I just did. No one said anything about the primacy of Peter for 200 years until the legend of a Petrine Roman sojourn began to grow from the same questionable roots.

[RobbyS]

The numerous mentions of Peter in the New Testament is the best evidence of his importance. But the best evidence of his primacy in the Church is found in Matthew 16 and in John 21 where he is “commissioned.” The Reformation controversy over these texts, however, makes it impossible to resolve this because each side is locked into a position from which neither can budge. Catholics affirm the claim of the papacy as the ultimate judge of the meaning of Scripture; Protestants deny that claim.: they claim that right for themselves. In the end it was the secular lords who made the decision.

[Claud]

Are you certain concerning Revelation 17?

Quite certain. Seven mountains for the seven hills of Rome, persecutes the martyrs, rules over the kings of earth. I can't imagine what other city fits.

I am not among those who insist Peter never was in Rome. There is simply no proof one way or the other. I do claim; however, that Peter never exercised or even claimed Primacy in any fashion.

I'm not looking for knock-down, open-and-shut, case-closed proof. I suspect we won't get that till the last judgment. I am looking for the preponderance of the evidence. And there I think one has to say that Peter was indeed in Rome.

As to him not exercising or claiming primacy, well, if you're looking for him wearing a golden tiara then no, he didn't do that. But was he singled out as the leader of the Apostles? Certainly. There's no other candidate that comes even close....it's really quite lopsided.

[Claud]

Why is there nothing from Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, a credible church father in Rome in the first or second century.

Nothing from Irenaeus? If you keep claiming it, I'll keep posting it! :)

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the succession of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3, 3, 2).