Constantinople: 25 Quotes from the Eastern Fathers on the Petrine Ministry

stpeterslist ^ | January 25, 2013 | HHAMBROSE

[NYer]

St. Peter is the Prince of the Apostles and our First Pope. SPL has reproduced a portion of a popular article that has been shared on many Catholic sites – though we think it originated with Fisheaters - cataloguing the Eastern Fathers of the Church and their statements on St. Peter and his keys. Below are the historical comments of those who served Holy Mother Church in Constantinople. Many of the quotes focus on St. Peter as the Prince of the Apostles and the Keys of the Kingdom given to him by Christ Our Lord. Those unfamiliar with the biblical imagery and significance may struggle to understand why many of these quotes are articulating a strong historical support for the Primacy of Peter. SPL has published many lists on the topic of the Petrine Ministry – both from a biblical and historical perspective – and highly suggests the following lists to those who wish to know more about the Church Christ founded.¹

 

True Christians Follow the Pope

• 11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome
• 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy
• 13 Biblical Reasons St. Peter Is the Prince of the Apostles
• The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church
• All Human Creatures Are Subject to the Pope
• The Early Church in Jerusalem Followed the Pope: 7 Quotes from History

[NYer]

Ping!

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Do you post these kinds of things to reinforce Catholics in their faith, or to try to convince other Christians about Catholic beliefs?

If the first, I’m not the best judge as to the effectiveness of your posts. I don’t want to discourage you in your mission.

If the second, I have this feedback for you:

Much of the evidence is non-evidence. It doesn’t support your claims. I looked through some of your links and there is not much there. All very interesting stuff, but very late in history.

If this was believed in the first hundred years of Christianity, I have to believe it would be written quite a few places. If it is, you haven’t posted it yet...

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I would love to know why “Those of Asia...” turned away from St Paul.

I don’t see anything about them having to be reconverted to Christianity. Maybe they were following the doctrinal positions of Paul but were turned more to that legalistic doctrine of St James of Jerusalem who called Peter onto the carpet for preaching to the gentiles.

Later James and Peter said they would preach to the circumcised and Paul to the heathen(uncircumcised).

[Mother Mary]

Thanks!! Great site. Have bookmarked for future reference.

[NYer]

Do you post these kinds of things to reinforce Catholics in their faith, or to try to convince other Christians about Catholic beliefs?

Both

Much of the evidence is non-evidence. It doesn’t support your claims. I looked through some of your links and there is not much there. All very interesting stuff, but very late in history. If this was believed in the first hundred years of Christianity, I have to believe it would be written quite a few places. If it is, you haven’t posted it yet...

In the first hundred years, we have the testimony of the apostles themselves. There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

This understanding of petrine leadership continues in the texts of the early church fathers. They recognized that Peter is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, "You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church."

Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.

Clement of Alexandria

"[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 g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]" (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"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" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"[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" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Read More

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Your post contains a number of assumptions. Most used to go beyond what Scripture records.

It is evident Peter was used in the early Church. We agree. His prominence was among Jewish converts in Jerusalem. As the Gospels go out to the world, he disappears.

To then conclude he was used as more than a foundation stone, as Scripture says, is where your assumptions lead you to invent material to fill in the historical gaps between what is written and what you believe.

Your belief back fills a hundred silent years before you restart your narrative to give continued prominence in the absence of explicit Scripture. You jump about 100 silent years and then pretend there isn’t a gap. There is actually more than 100 years from the time Peter finished his inspired epistles until you begin again.

If you truly intend to influence Christians outside the Roman church, you will have to demonstrate it without your gaps.

[dragonblustar]

11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

Where's Jesus in all this?

[NYer]

As the Gospels go out to the world, he disappears.

Peter died in 67 AD! Of course he disappears; however, a new pope (pope, btw, means 'papa') was elected. Perhaps you neglected to read the information linked above The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church, with documented references.

To then conclude he was used as more than a foundation stone, as Scripture says, is where your assumptions lead you to invent material to fill in the historical gaps between what is written and what you believe.

No invented material here, nor was Peter a "foundation stone". Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

1. Your Greek is lacking - both vocabulary and grammar.

2. Right after calling Peter a small moveable stone, Christ addresses Peter as Satan. Using your back-fill logic, no one else in the Bible has ever had their name changed to Satan except Peter- changing his status and symbolizing his new name.

[Deacon Augustine]

St Ignatius of Antioch wrote his Epistle to the Romans before 107 AD. He clearly sees the Roman Church as the Church which exercises the Primacy by “presiding in love” over all the others:

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which PRESIDES OVER LOVE, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.”

...You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]...

...I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him...”

Within the first 100 years after the Resurrection there is also the Epistle of Pope St. Clement I to the Corinthians in which he clearly exercises episcopal authority over them. That is dated from as early as 70 AD (J A T Robinson) to 80 AD (Jurgens). This Epistle was a candidate for inclusion in the Canon of the New Testament, but the Church rejected it as he was considered too far removed from the apostles -Popes Linus and Cletus succeeded St Peter before him.

However, you won’t find any great apologetical proofs of the Papacy’s role in the early decades because it was a given amongst Christians of both east and west for the first millennium.

St. Irenaus of Lyons (185 AD) is the first to set out the succession of the Bishops of Rome and he is clearly of the view that one must be in agreement with the faith of the Church of Rome to be a member of Christ’s Church:

Against Heresies, Book III Ch. 3 1. “It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to the perfect apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”

[aMorePerfectUnion]

DA,
Thanks for taking time to try to dig up something written in the interim period. I sincerely appreciate the kindness in posting here.

In the end, the Holy Scriptures record no office of Pope. They record no instruction for so-called Apostolic succession. If this was important in any way, it makes sense that specific instructions would have been given - as indeed they are for every office of the Church. Consequently, the honor paid in the first several hundred years to the current bishop in Rome was honor, but not authority.

There are no longer Apostles today. They formed the foundation of establishing the church.

The only two ways Christ is recorded choosing Apostles are:

1. Physically present and choosing them personally
2. Appearing personally to Paul and then catching him into the heavens for instruction.

Neither of these is practiced today. Neither is necessary.

So while I am indebted to you for your effort, my question up thread remains unanswered, and more importantly, the Scriptural evidence as to an office or authority of a Pope is an argument from silence.