Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.
The Catholic Explanation
The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.
The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.
It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.
The Actual Explanation
In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.
Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.
Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.
The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.
....In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.
do not make the error of confusing a particular church with Christianity and its growth
Never let it be forgotten that Jews gave Christianity to the world.
You are a Catholic who does not understand his Church. I will explain in another post shortly. I invite you to my homepage for some reading.
The early Church fathers have somewhat to say about the primacy of Simon Peter. Unlike ‘sola scriptura’, the appointment of Simon Peter IS actually biblical.
If you want to call being persecuted and tortured until death "lonely", go with it.
“Unlike ‘sola scriptura’, the appointment of Simon Peter IS actually biblical.”
Wow. Wrong twice in one sentence! Efficient and speedy!
Ping for later
Skippy, you make tons of errors, but just for a few 1) Jesus did not leave us orphans by throwing down a NT intact and yelling “good luck, y’all” as he Ascended. 2) The one with “the keys” takes on an inherited office. See Isaiah 22:22 for reference. 3) You seem weirdly hung up on Rome. It doesn’t matter if “headquarters” is Rome, Timbuktu, or Zanzibar. 4) Peter IS the rock. 5) Whenever something comes up — Peter is the one who settles the issue. 6) The other apostles all defer to Peter.
Some of your refutations prove the opposite of what you intend to prove. For example, you say the early Church didn't recognize anything special about the See of Peter and yet you cite multiple persons who chafed under the authority. Clearly, someone thought there was authority invested in this See from very early in Church history.
Immediately after Peter's confession of faith, Jesus changes Peter's name to mean "rock" and declares He will build His Church upon this rock. We recognize the dual meaning here, where you only recognize one... Peter is the rock, as designated by Christ, and so is Peter's confession of faith. This faith is what set him apart.
Was Peter's role unique among the Apostles? You betcha. Who stepped out of the boat? Who made the confession of faith? Who denied Christ and was then raised up to serve his brothers? Who speaks for the Apostles when they are assembled together? The New Testament is almost the story of Jesus and Peter given his stardom!
Let's talk about authority. I would hope we can agree that there must be authority in the Church, right? Whether it's the Archbishop of Canterbury, Billy Graham, local pastors or a host of other persons... someone is constantly being elevated in the Protestant world to positions of authority. The problem with this authority, though, is that you only recognize the authority if you agree with it. What kind of authority is that? None. That is why there is no unity of faith in the Protestant world. Where disagreements exist, new churches are formed.
Take a look at the Epistles. Why were they written? If you read closely, they were written to confirm unity of faith. They either corrected what was flagging in a church or confirmed what was faithful. However, history should note that there is no place for the Epistles in a Church with no central authority.
Whose Church is this? Jesus said He would build His Church. It isn't Peter's Church or Apollus's... it is one, Holy and Apostolic. And Who is Christ? He is the fulfillment of all prophecy, the King Who will rule forever over the throne of David. We have a model in the Old Testament for administration of the matters of state. Come with me to Isaiah 22...
In the Kingdom, there is the King, of course. He is the only one with authority... unless he bestows it upon someone else. We see in Isaiah 22:21 that Eliakim is being raised to high office... and not just any office. He will be clothed in a royal robe, have the government in his hand and be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. The key of the House of David will be layed upon his shoulder that what he opens none shall shut and what he shuts none shall open. This language should sound familiar... it is the same language said to Peter after his confession. This is the language of naming the Prime Minister of the kingdom. It doesn't diminish Christ for Him to name those to serve Him. What you also see in Isaiah is the passing of the office from one to another. The authority goes with the office.
Protestants have resisted this interpretation for centuries now but there really is no other way to see it. Your worldview has brought disunity and division while the Catholic Church maintains Her unity of Faith. We disagree and discuss on matters of culture and contemporary living. We do not disagree on matters of settled Faith and Morals given by Christ in the Deposit of Faith (big "T" tradition). And we do submit to the ecclesial authority invested in the successors of the Apostles. On all matters? No. On matters within their authority as ministers of the Kingdom on Earth.
Are you UNAWARE at that “sola” means alone? That is what protestants preach and they are big on insisting “sola scriptura.” Itsy bitsy problem for you people is that it is UNBIBLICAL. NO WHERE in the bible, EVER does the bible itself say “scripture ALONE.” In fact the bible directly contradicts your favorite pony. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 indicates teaching can be either a) by letter b) WORD OF MOUTH — and certainly if Peter teaches by letter he can also orally teach too. Duh. Also 1 Timothy 3:15 also states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth...and Jesus said that Peter is who he is building his church on. It’s not Catholics you have an issue with, but apparently Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura is not our circus.
You must have me confused with a brand of peanut butter.
Wishful wishful thinking.
The evidence for Peter dying in Rome is overwhelming and as I far as I know unanimous. You show me one credible account of where he died elsewhere. Geneva? Where? We know he was at Antioch. Is there a tomb of his there, like there was at Rome? In the 1950s diggings under the Basilica of St. Peter discovered a 1st century necropolis and (very likely) the Tropaion built over the tomb mentioned by the second-century Christian Gaius, dating from the middle of the 100s. By the second century his death at Rome was taken as a given.
This bit about the bishops. Christ gave two interconnected grants of Apostolic Authority. One to all the bishops, and one to Peter personally. The same power and authority Christ gave to the Apostles as a group, he gave to Peter individually. We see this in subsequent ecclesiastical history as an Ecumenical Council which is then ratified and approved by the Pope. You cannot deny one and claim the other—they are the same authority. As the Orthodox theologian Met. Zizioulas says, you cannot have a council without a “protos”.
Go read Clement’s Epistle to the Corinthians, which by all accounts was written around between 90-100. You will find a Bishop of Rome taking a keen interest in the internal ecclesiastical affairs of Corinth—after the Corinthians actually wrote him seeking his advice on the matter. (Why?) Then go read Ignatius’s letter to the Romans...that great saint Ignatius who dispensed advice to an array of Churches on the way to Rome and then—all of a sudden—writes to Rome and takes a deferential tone and won’t presume to lecture them. Then go read Eusebius’s account of the Quartodeciman controversy, where Pope Victor around 150 or so threatened to excommunicate the Churches of the East. Is that not evidence of an authority he thought he had? Irenaeus says flat out in the middle of the 100s that it is a matter of necessity to be communion with the Bishop of Rome on account of its pre-eminent foundation. No dominant bishop? No dominant sees or Apostolic Authority? Statements like those are blatantly contradicted by the literature from that era.
Finally, it’s balderdash that Peter never mentions Rome in his own Epistle. He says it right in 1 Peter 5:13, the Church that is in Babylon. Oh but Babylon means Mesopotamia, not Rome? Really? When was Peter in Mesopotamia? And wasn’t Babylon a ruin by then? And who’s Peter with there in “Babylon”? Silvanus, a unabashedly Roman name if I ever saw one. Is Peter heading a church in a Mesopotamian ruin with a guy with a Roman name? Not impossible, granted, but...c’mon.
Also just look at Mark’s Gospel...it’s positively full of Hellenized Latin terms like “kenturion”. It bears every indication of having been written in Italy and of course the tradition was that Mark was faithfully recording the teaching of Peter as preached in Italy.
History is not always as clear as we like. Here it is. Whatever the Papacy is now, its essentials go all the way back to the first and second centuries. The totality of the evidence is absolutely clear that Peter lived and died at Rome and headed the Church there, which by that very fact (and Paul’s presence too of course) granted it a special authority that the 1st and 2nd century Christians took for granted.
I don’t know why I bother. {Shaking the dust...}
That's certainly a rock-solid claim to authority and certitude if I've ever seen one.
Spiritual work of mercy. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.