The Roots of the Papacy and the Primacy of Peter

Insight Scoop ^ | August 21, 2011 | Carl Olson

[NYer]

Readings:
• Isa 22:19-23
• Ps 138:1-2, 2-3, 6, 8
• Rom 11:33-36
• Mt 16:13-20

“The doctrine of the primacy of Peter is just one more of the many errors that the Church of Rome has added to the Christian religion.”

So wrote the Presbyterian theologian Loraine Boettner in his 1962 book, Roman Catholicism, a popular work of anti-Catholic polemics. Although the religious landscape has changed significantly since the early 1960s, there are still many non-Catholic Christians today who agree wholeheartedly with Boettner’s assertions. The Papacy is unbiblical! It has no basis in Scripture! Peter was never singled out as a leader of the apostles!

Growing up in a Fundamentalist home, I believed such statements. But I now agree instead with the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock” (par 881; cf. 551-53). Some of the reasons for the change in my beliefs are found in today’s readings, which provide some Old Testament context for the papacy and also describe a profound exchange between Jesus and Peter.

First, the Old Testament background. King Solomon and his successors had twelve deputies or ministers who helped the king govern and rule (cf., 1 Kings 4:1ff). The master of the palace, or prime minister, had a unique position among those twelve, as described in today’s reading from the prophet Isaiah. The prime minister wore a robe and sash befitting his office, and was entrusted by the king to wield the king’s authority. The symbol for that authority were “the keys of the House of David,” which enabled the minister to regulate the affairs of the king’s household—that is, of the kingdom. In addition, this prime minister is described by Isaiah as a “father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.”

Fast forward to about the year A.D. 30. Jesus and his disciples are in the region of Caesarea Philippi, a pagan area about 25 miles north of the Sea of Galilee. They likely were standing at the base of Mount Hermon in front of a well-known cliff filled with niches holding statues of pagan deities; at the top of the cliff stood a temple in honor of Caesar. Jesus first asked the disciples who other people thought he was. The variety of answers given revealed the confusion surrounding the identity of Jesus, quite similar to the confusion and controversies about Jesus in our own time. 

Jesus asked who they thought he was. It was Peter—brash but correct—who responded with the great acclamation, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God”, confessing both the divinity and kingship of Jesus. Peter was then addressed singularly by Jesus, who renamed him Petros, or “Rock”. That name was unique among the Jews, reserved in the Old Testament for God alone. Jesus further declared he would build his Church upon the newly named Rock, and he gave Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven.” 

This dramatic moment makes little or no sense without the context provided by Isaiah 22 and other Old Testament passages. Jesus, heir of David and King of kings, was appointing Peter to be his prime minister, the head of the Twelve. “The ‘power of the keys’,” explains the Catechism, “designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church” (par 553). The binding and loosing refers to prohibiting and permitting; it also includes the function of rendering authoritative teaching and making official pronouncements.

Does this mean that Peter and his successors are sinless or even somehow divine? No, of course not. They are men in need of salvation, just like you and I. But God has chosen to work through such men in order to proclaim the Gospel, to lead the Church, and to teach the faithful. They are fathers (“pope” means “papa”) who hold a unique office for one reason: they were called by Christ to hold the keys of the household of God.

(This "Opening the Word" column originally appeared in the August 24, 2008, edition of Our Sunday Visitor newspaper.)

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles, Book Excerpts, and Interviews:

• Peter and Succession | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• "Primacy in Love": The Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray
• From "The Appeal to Antiquity", Chapter One of The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 | Adrian Fortescue
• The Essential Nature and Task of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church | Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger
• Papal Authority in von Balthasar's Ecclesiology | Raymond Cleaveland
• Church Authority and the Petrine Element | Hans Urs von Balthasar
• Motherhood of the Entire Church | Henri de Lubac, S.J.
• Mater Ecclesia: An Ecclesiology for the 21st Century | Donald Calloway, M.I.C.
• The Papacy and Ecumenism | Rev. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M.
• The Church Is the Goal of All Things | Christoph Cardinal Schönborn
• Excerpts from Theology of the Church | Charles Cardinal Journet
• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May

[allmendream]

“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals.”

Really?

So was Pope Stephen in error in doctrines of faith or morals when he had his predecessor exhumed and held to trial (while dead) for violations of cannon law and other charges - or was Pope Formosus in error in doctrines of faith or morals as Pope Stephen charged?

Hard to say that neither men erred in doctrines of faith or morals. One of then had to be wrong.

[ColdSteelTalon]

These are broad statements. Can you back them up with some specifics?

The church wiped out the Cathars for starters.

[ColdSteelTalon]

And I will bet you a steak dinner that there are many more Catholic martyrs, killed for their faith, that you would ever imagine.

Lets not change the subject. I am talking about Catholic Church sanctioned violence either directly or by it agents in governments under the Catholic Church's control.

[NYer]

So was Pope Stephen in error in doctrines of faith or morals when he had his predecessor exhumed and held to trial (while dead) for violations of cannon law and other charges...

Pope St. Stephen served the church from 12 May, 254, until his death on 2 August, 257. Which pope did he exhume?

[NYer]

The church wiped out the Cathars for starters.

I believe you meant to say the church eradicated the Cathar heresy. The essential characteristic of the Catharist faith was Dualism, i.e. the belief in a good and an evil principle, of whom the former created the invisible and spiritual universe, while the latter was the author of the material world. The Catharist system was a simultaneous attack on the Catholic Church and the then existing State. The Church was directly assailed in its doctrine and hierarchy. The denial of the value of oaths, and the suppression, at least in theory, of the right to punish, undermined the basis of the Christian State. But the worst danger was that the triumph of the heretical principles meant the extinction of the human race. This annihilation was the direct consequence of the Catharist doctrine, that all intercourse between the sexes ought to be avoided and that suicide or the Endura, under certain circumstances, is not only lawful but commendable. The assertion of some writers, like Charles Molinier, that Catholic and Catharist teaching respecting marriage are identical, is an erroneous interpretation of Catholic doctrine and practice. Among Catholics, the priest is forbidden to marry, but the faithful can merit eternal happiness in the married state. For the Cathari, no salvation was possible without previous renunciation of marriage. Mr. H.C. Lea, who cannot be suspected of partiality towards the Catholic Church, writes: "However much we may deprecate the means used for its (Catharism) suppression and commiserate those who suffered for conscience' sake, we cannot but admit that the cause of orthodoxy was in this case the cause of progress and civilization. Had Catharism become dominant, or even had it been allowed to exist on equal terms, its influence could not have failed to prove disastrous." source

See also, The Cathar Heresy

[allmendream]

Pope Stephen VI (died August 897) was Pope from May 22, 896 to August 897.

He had Pope Formosus exhumed, as I previously stated in my rather short post. It was called the Cadaver Synod - a rather famous event - I am surprised you have never heard of it.

When one Pope accuses another of crimes, has his body exhumed and his corpse desecrated and thrown in the Tiber - one Pope was OBVIOUSLY in error.

Which one?

[ColdSteelTalon]

The question is did the Catholic church sanction the killing of Cathars? Unless you believe that the Church was right in killing them and that it was part of eradication of the heresy?

[Salvation]

St. Peter has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; you might think otherwise, but that is not what the Bible says.

[Salvation]

And how many Catholics were killed by Nero for sport?

[Rashputin]

Good stuff. Scripture clearly tells us who the author of confusion is and anyone who looks at the non-Catholic community can see that it's a mass of confusion. Christ gave Peter a new name for a reason, not on a whim or so he could make a joke about big rocks and little rocks. Without the authority of a priesthood and an earthly prime minister for His Church, there is no limit to the number of ways folks can reinterpret, redefine terms, remove from context, and otherwise rationalize whatever they want to do as what they should be doing. The Holy Spirit for comfort and individual guidance and the priesthood for education, correction, confession, and most importantly to bring us the Eucharist makes perfect sense. The main reason it's difficult for a lot of people to accept boils down to personal pride in being the final authority in all matters which frees an individual from bearing any cross other than the cross of minor inconvenience.

Eve began her slide into sin by misquoting what she had been told to do and then falling for the lie that she could know all things and interpret both good and evil for herself. Just as with Eve, the sins we see running rampant in traditional non-Catholic churches (homosexual pastors, homosexual marriage, accepting abortion & birth control, ...) all begin from the same thing, individual interpretation that ends up being individual permission to bear no cross and to not follow Christ if doing so gets in the way of making a buck or having a good time.

Taking up the cross and following Christ begins with accepting the burden of not being the final authority on all matters of faith and morals. Anyone who is dedicated to Sola Yourselfa needs to consider the fact that Christ took the role of the Jewish priesthood very seriously and instructed his followers to obey them but not to emulate them. That's not the sort of thing He would say if He was the beginning of some new sort of anarchy founded on individual interpretation based on personal understanding.

Regards

[ColdSteelTalon]

And how many Catholics were killed by Nero for sport?

Lets not change the subject. The question is did the Catholic Church cause people who it did not agree with to be killed? My answer is yes the Church did kill people who it did not agree with. The Cathars are a prime example cited by me. Lets not change the subject to how many Catholics were killed by Nero. Its not relevant to answering the question.

Such answer on your behalf amounts to what is often referred to as a straw man argument.

The fact is when the Catholic Church got a hold of temporal power it abused that power and killed those with whom it disagreed. The Cathars are a prime example.

Now if you desire to take the position that history is wrong and that the Catholic Church did not at any time in history cause people to die that it did not agree with, then you should start with disproving the historical facts regarding how the Church acted against the Cathars.

Now of course you might want to make the argument that the Cathars were proclaimed by Catholic Church as heretics, and thus it was OK for the Catholic Church to harm them. That would be an attempt at justification for the actions of the Catholic Church in killing Cathars because the Catholic Church did not agree with them.

[BlackElk]

I believe he is talking of later popes. Pope Formosius (891-896) was succeeded at at his death (d. 4/4/896) by Pope Boniface VI who was elected on 4/11/896 and quickly died on 4/26/896. Next was Pope Stephen VI (apparently also known as Pope Stephen VII who was elected in May, 896 and was deposed in August, 897, "thrown into prison for his brutality and murdered there." He was strangled by his enemies not apparently martyred for the Faith. The period was generally not a feather in the cap of the papacy. There were many popes in a very few years and few of them were anything to be proud of. Several were proof of God's love for His Church (which survived in spite of their efforts) and that Jesus Christ REALLY meant it when He promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.

Pope Formosius's corpse was indeed dug out of his grave, dressed in papal robes, put on trial (accused of trumped up non-doctrinal political charges advanced against his defenseless corpse by his ecclesiastical in-house enemies) and convicted and deposed posthumously (a silly and vain attempt at revising history) and the corpse ordered to be thrown in the Tiber whence it was retrieved by a passing monk. A couple of popes later, the corpse was reburied by Theodore II in 11/897 and Formosius's status restored.

The Formosius affair had nothing whatsoever to do with doctrine or dogma but rather with the fact that Formosius was already bishop of some other diocese when he was elected pope (bishop of Rome) which is quite common thereafter for many bishops who change dioceses as they are promoted whether to the papacy or not. Moving from one diocese to another as a bishop was then known as "translation" and ostensibly forbidden by then existing (but not yet codified) Canon Law (sort of an early equivalent at that time of what was yet to be called Common Law in Britain).

The pending question of allmendream is whether Formosius or Stephen VI or VII had committed doctrinal error. The answer is clearly not, much less with the rigorous standards of Vatican I in the 1850s as to papal infallibility. That conciliar declaration has always riled up and been thoroughly misunderstood by those who are not of our Faith. They tend to be driven into a complete tizzy by the word "infallible" or to confuse infallible with sinless or impeccable (all popes have been sinners and for a spectacular example one could study on Alexander VI whose maiden name was Borgia and he is merely the most spectacular and by no means lonely except as to the rampaging nature of his misbehavior).

The story is covered verrrry briefly by distinguished British Catholic and historian Paul Johnson in his "The Papacy" republished by Barnes and Noble in 1997 and with particular attention to page 69 and to the brief description of the popes in question on page 213. Stephen VI or VII of 896-897 may have been many things but proclaimed and canonized a saint was not one of them and is unlikely to ever be before the end of the world and the Final Judgment at the very least.

All that having been said, our burden is not to prove that no pope has never been mistaken at all or even as to the Faith but that the pope, when speaking ex cathedra (from the throne) as successor of Peter, on a matter of faith and morals, and specifically invoking the extraordinary infallibility defined at Vatican I (in the 1850s) by the Council Fathers. This invocation has been made exactly three times: Pius IX defining such a council as infallible when acting in concert with the pope and under the same circumstances (1850s); Pius IX defining infallibly that Mary, the Mother of Jesus, was conceived "alone of all her race (other than Jesus)" without her soul bearing the mark of Original Sin (1850s after the very famous Marian apparitions on that subject to the child St. Bernadette Soubarous (sp.?) at Lourdes; and Pius XII in 1954 who defined the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, body and soul, into heaven.

Allmendream and coldsteeltalon: This info is offered to both of you and anyone else with Christian fraternal respect and, while I disagree (in all likelihood with each of you as each of you likely disagree with me and other Catholics), that does not mean that I bear ill will toward you. May Christians, Catholic or Reformed, join together whenever possible and respect one another in all circumstances, in service to Him and His plan. May God bless both of you and all of yours for your sincere efforts in service to God and God's Word.

God bless NYer and Salvation and all of theirs for all of the magnificent work that both of you do for Jesus Christ and His Church here on FR. I try not to get in the middle of Catholic/Reformed controversies, as you both know. I have promised myself not to make a habit of this. You both deserve defense by all Catholics here.

NYer: Any word on whether Hubbard is likely to be replaced by a Catholic or who that successor may be?

[ColdSteelTalon]

Well said Blackelk.

I have no problem with people practicing their faith as they see fit. I am only making the argument that the Catholic Church (in the past) has had a history of persecuting others who did not agree with Catholic doctrine. Hence while I am a Christian, I could not be a Catholic knowing what was done to people with a different Christian viewpoint when the Church possessed power over governments of various nations. The Catholic Church has not had an unblemished history like many would believe.

And I certainly am for working together outside of our differences, especially on things like stopping abortion etc.

That said, it is disturbing that there are those who seem to take the bent that the Catholic Church is infallible as well as the Pope. History has plainly shown otherwise.

[allmendream]

“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals”

Seems that one or the other of Pope Stephen (called the sixth or the seventh posthumously) or Pope Formosius erred in regards to doctrine and morality.

Which one?

Now if the poster had said that no Pope ever erred when speaking “ex cathedra” I wouldn't have raised my objection. But to say that no Pope ever erred in regards to doctrines of faith or morality strains credulity to anyone knowledgeable of history.

Excellent post, by the way. The Borgia era, the “reign of the harlots”, and many other events should make one tremble at the unwarranted self pride necessary for a Catholic to say that no Pope ever made an error as far as doctrines of faith or morality.

[Salvation]

Here's three martyrs who are remembered today. I can post more to you each day.

 

Sts. Timothy, Hippolytus & Symphorian
During the pontificate of Pope Melchiades (311-314), Timothy of Antioch came to Rome and preached the Gospel. The prefect of the city, Tarquin, placed him under arrest and after a period of imprisonment ordered that he be scourged three times because he refused to sacrifice to the gods. After further excruciating torments Timothy was beheaded. At Ostia, the bishop St. Hippolytus, was a man of exceptional culture. Because he was an outstanding witness to the faith, he was bound hand and foot by Emperor Alexander and cast into a deep pit filled with water; thereby he obtained the crown. Not far away Christians buried his body. At Autun the youthful Symphorian was brought to judgment under Emperor Aurelian (270-275). His mother urged perseverance: "My son, think of eternal life. Raise your glance to heaven and behold your eternal King! Your life will not be taken from you, but transformed into a better one!"

Excerpted from the Roman Martyrology

[NYer]

When one Pope accuses another of crimes, has his body exhumed and his corpse desecrated and thrown in the Tiber - one Pope was OBVIOUSLY in error. Which one?

Since neither one of us was there, we will never know.

Stephen was a Roman, and the son of John, a priest. He had been consecrated Bishop of Anagni, possibly against his will, by Formosus, and became pope about May, 896. Whether induced by evil passion or perhaps, more probably, compelled by the Emperor Lambert and his mother Ageltruda, he caused the body of Formosus to be exhumed, and in January, 897, to be placed before an unwilling synod of the Roman clergy. A deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for passing from the See of Porto to that of Rome. source.

Regardless of the circumstances, he never erred in doctrines of faith or morals.

[NYer]

NYer: Any word on whether Hubbard is likely to be replaced by a Catholic or who that successor may be?

Thanks for thinking and praying for us here in Albany. No word yet on who will replace Hubbard, or Rochester bishop Clark, his good friend from seminary. Both turn 75 in 2 more years. Please keep praying for us the Holy Father! Cent' Anni!

[allmendream]

I guess it depends upon what your definition of “doctrines of faith or morals” is - or what your definition of “error” is.

What was the substance of the stated disagreement between Pope Stephen and Pope Formosus if not over doctrine?

Either Pope Formosus was in error for performing the functions of a bishop, or Pope Stephen was in error for condemning him for it.

It seems to me that it is impossible to have both be correct over the doctrine they ‘argued’ over.

[Mr Rogers]

“In its 2000 year history, not one pope has ever erred in doctrines of faith or morals.”

That is a broad statement. Care to explain how you define it? Peter, for example, gave in to the teaching of the Judaizers:

” 11But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. 13And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. 14But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

15We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners; 16yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

17But if, in our endeavor to be justified in Christ, we too were found to be sinners, is Christ then a servant of sin? Certainly not! 18For if I rebuild what I tore down, I prove myself to be a transgressor. 19For through the law I died to the law, so that I might live to God. 20I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me. 21I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness were through the law, then Christ died for no purpose.” - Gal 2

If Peter tried to “force the Gentiles to live like Jews”, how was that NOT wrong doctrine?

One could go on.

“Pope Honorius I (died October 12, 638) was pope from 625 to 638...

...More than forty years after his death, Honorius was anathematized by name along with the Monothelites by the Third Council of Constantinople (First Trullan) in 680. The anathema read, after mentioning the chief Monothelites, “and with them Honorius, who was Prelate of Rome, as having followed them in all things”.

Furthermore, the Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, “And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.” The Sixteenth Session adds: “To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!”

This condemnation was subsequently confirmed by Leo II (a fact disputed by such persons as Cesare Baronio and Bellarmine,[1] but which has since become commonly accepted) in the form, “and also Honorius, who did not attempt to sanctify this Apostolic Church with the teaching of Apostolic tradition, but by profane treachery permitted its purity to be polluted”. The Catholic Encyclopedia notes: “It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact; and he is to be considered to have been condemned in the sense in which Origen and Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died in Catholic communion, never having resisted the Church, have been condemned.” (quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia)” - Wiki on Honorius

Ever hear this? “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” - http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Bon08/B8unam.htm (UNAM SANCTAM, Bull of Pope Boniface VIII promulgated November 18, 1302)

Is that still the doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, or has it changed? And if it is no longer believed, then didn’t Pope Boniface teach something false, and declare...proclaim...define a false doctrine of faith?

[Mr Rogers]

“It firmly believes, professes and preaches that all those who are outside the catholic church, not only pagans but also Jews or heretics and schismatics, cannot share in eternal life and will go into the everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless they are joined to the catholic church before the end of their lives; that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is of such importance that only for those who abide in it do the church’s sacraments contribute to salvation and do fasts, almsgiving and other works of piety and practices of the Christian militia produce eternal rewards; and that nobody can be saved, no matter how much he has given away in alms and even if he has shed his blood in the name of Christ, unless he has persevered in the bosom and the unity of the catholic church.”

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/FLORENCE.HTM