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

[ColdSteelTalon]

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

You keep trying to change the subject.

I have proven my point regarding the Catholic Church's abuse of power to kill those they did not agree with using the Cathars as an example. You can throw martyrs at me every day, it does not change historical facts.

[Jvette]

I understand what you are saying, but I must ask you, what is your feeling about the reign of Elizabeth I, who, in the name of her Christian beliefs had Catholics killed?

No one here claims the Church has an unblemished record, nor that there have been popes and other leaders of seriously bad character.

For me, that truth has been one of the reasons I am Catholic.

Jesus promised His Church would survive even the gates of hell and it has.

[Cronos]

It has the blood of too many on its hands.

one finds the same argument used against Christianity as a whole.

[Mr Rogers]

“...I must ask you, what is your feeling about the reign of Elizabeth I, who, in the name of her Christian beliefs had Catholics killed?”

You could pick a better example than Queen Elizabeth. She had very few Catholics put to death during most of her reign. At the end, after multiple attempts on her life by Catholics, she killed Catholics for lack of loyalty, not out of religious belief. Unlike her older sister, Bloody Mary...

There have been ample killings on both sides. When you mix church and state, evil comes. Doesn’t matter if it is Protestant or Catholic, mixing politics with church is a bad idea.

[Cronos]

It has the blood of too many on its hands.

Secondly, one finds that argument used to blame even our Southern Baptist friends who accuse it (incorrectly) of being an outcome of being anti-African American.

Talking about actions in the 1500s or even 1700s and comparing this to a denomination just formed in the 20th century is apples and oranges

[Cronos]

Finally, the Cathars were Gnostics who believed that all matter was evil and that the best way to handle this was to not bring more children into the world and to die to escape this illusion of a world — a very Jain philosophy but without the depth of Jainism

[Jvette]

I agree with your point and when one examines the times that religion has been used as a justification for killing others, it can almost always be traced back to civil or political agendas.

The point is that the Church does have human leaders and humans are sinners and some of those sinful leaders have used the Church to further their own power and wealth.

It is unfortunate, but not limited to just the Catholic Church.

[Coleus]

I just saw dr. scott hahn talk about Isa 22 on the show “our Father’s plan”...

[dsutah]

There were a lot of Catholics burnt at the stake also! How about Joan of Arc, who was but one of many? Also, how about the Catholics who died along w/Jews in the Holocaust? There was a large number of Catholic priests and monks who died when Henry the Eighth, (who started his own church)went on a rampage on the monasteries!

[ColdSteelTalon]

In reply to your question. It does not matter happened to Catholics when they did not have the power. It matters what the Catholic Church has done when it held on to the levers of political power. The historical fact is that the Catholic Church was directly responsible for killing people that did not agree with its doctrine. They had the power they had a choice, and in the past the Church chose to murder people. Granted it does not do or advocate these things today. But the Church expressly decided to kill against the will of Christ. I do not align myself with an organization that has such a history. I am a Christian but I would disavow the Church I am affiliated with in heartbeat if it advocated in the now or if it was ever proven that it had a history in the past, of murdering people.