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.
Let me introduce you to my good FRiend, don-o, who you can be sure does possess a blazing fast photographic memory, and a substantial library to boot. A fine Southern Gentleman, and a defender of the Greek Orthodox faith.
You are a generation away in Polycarp - I am speaking to what the Apostles themselves had to have upon them to present in the synagogues, which there is good information that they DID, at least in the beginning. By the time of Polycarp, and even prior, within the NT, there is firm evidence that the letters were being copied and traded between the churches corporately... So it is a fair supposition that the Gospels too were established throughout in the same way.
Regardless, I am a strong proponent of the idea that the NT books were fairly well known and distributed early on.
Because of that strong undercurrent in the Bible, I can see where you are coming from. 'Peter' or PATR/PETR is a pagan title going all the way back, so a Samaritan magi named Simon PETR is not surprising. And the road from Samaria to at least Pergamum was certainly well paved - Samaria lost it's dominance in the Mystery Religions to Pergamum, which, in this precise timeframe, was being subsumed by Rome. What a coincidence, eh?
Great post.
Read a little more widely about that inscription. The “Simon” part is well accepted but there are serious disagreements about Bagatti’s reading of the patronymic. Even Milik, the original editor of the study, said that different readings were possible:
http://www.uhl.ac/en/projects/talpiot-tomb/shimon-barzillai/
More recently scholars have said it is better read as “Simon Bar Zilla”, from a famous Jewish family of that name.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Many Assyrian Christians who live in Mesopotamia and trace their roots back to Apostolic times actually believe as you do that the Babylon of 1 Peter is in Mesopotamia. But guess what...they dont really regard him as a founder of their Church the way the Antiochenes and Romans do:
“The Assyrian Church of the East (hence forth ACE), whose official name is the Holy Apostolic Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, was established in 33 A.D. by the apostles Thomas (Toma in Assyrian), Theodos (Addai in Assyrian), and Bartholomew (Bar Tulmay in Assyrian). The first Patriarch of ACE was Addai, although Thomas and Bartholomew are also officially listed as the first Patriarchs (see Table of Apostolic Succession below). “
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
The Prescription Against Heretics, Tertullian
Chapter XXXVI.-The Apostolic Churches the Voice of the Apostles. Let the Heretics Examine Their Apostolic Claims, in Each Case, Indisputable. The Church of Rome Doubly Apostolic; Its Early Eminence and Excellence. Heresy, as Perverting the Truth, is Connected Therewith.
Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally.
Achaia is very near you, (in which) you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; (and there too) you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).
How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!
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.This was written around the year 180.
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.So his argument concerning succession is not that it provides an unbroken line of titular authority from Peter as the key bearer, but that there was a succession of open truth passed forward to each new generation, which truth never had in it anything like the ravings of the Gnostics, as he describes it.
Excellent. As usual.
When along with a few of the other minions, I was taking a break from the duties and drudgery around here, you know, all that secretly being forum moderators, pulling posts made by FRomans to provide our brigades with unfair advantage, and that imitating being FRoman's ourselves but doing such a lousy job of being "good ones" on purpose in order to make the Catholic Church look bad, you know, the usual stuff,
... well a bunch of us got to talking, and one of us (I don't recall exactly who right at the moment) saw this thread and mentioned how you again exercised the admirable self-restraint you are well known (and admired!) for, as again demonstrated in your remarks at #14 this thread, then after we all got to looking further at other comments came across this one;
and all decided seemingly in unison (we are a tight knit group, we minions) that now, right about now ! would be an excellent time to just go ahead and relax a bit and let that maniacal laughter you have been so long holding back, come roaring out, Mein Führer.
.
.
[psst...NKP, don't ever let them know you are one of us. keep up the good work. you're one of the best operatives we've got.]
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Actually there are about 7.125 Billion people subject to papal authority, just over 6 billion either don't know it or don't accept it.
Not familiar with Lampe's work, but it seems from your description like he is taking facts that everyone already knows and drawing exactly the wrong conclusions from them.
Of course the Roman church was an assemblage of house churches! Where else could they worship? There were no basilicas, and the catacombs were not yet being used. They would have gathered in the homes of sympathetic families. Excavations under the Basilica of St. Clement in Rome have shown exactly such a house church, later converted to a Mithraeum and then back to a Church. It is thought that this house belonged to the family of Flavius Clemens until they fell out of favor with the Emperor in the 90s.
And we already know that there were multiple bishops simultaneously. I don't remember which ancient author stated this offhand, but Peter was said to have personally ordained Linus, Cletus, and Clement to the episcopacy while he lived. Clement writes to the church in Corinth and says "WE feel that WE have been tardy in turning OUR attention to the points respecting which you have consulted US". He's speaking for a group.
But if you think this militates against any kind of presidency, then take a little trip to the chancery office of any diocese in this country, where you will find a Bishop served by several auxiliary bishops. The Pope is surrounded by cardinals, most of whom are bishops. But not a single one of them is at all confused about who presides. And the Apostolic succession passes through all of them not only as individuals but as a community.
The authority of the Church of Rome concerns less its internal organization and more its external relations. Ignatius tells us it "presides in Love". Clement tells us "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger."
It seems every time we bring Irenaeus up someone can be relied on to reply "well, he's not inspired...he is subject to error". No kidding! But you'd think that if he were wrong on this, others who came after him would say "wow, man, you really went off the deep end there." That's exactly what happened to Origen and Tertullian. Who told Irenaeus he went off the deep end? Who told him he made a mistake, or he was only talking about Gnostics or whatever? Were is the sed contra from any Church Father?
And this business about "both Peter and Paul" founding the Church arguing against the primacy of Peter. Paul says he is not worthy to be even called an Apostle, whereas Peter was the head of the Apostles. Peter walked with Christ whereas Paul got knocked off a horse much later--do you think so little of your ancestors that they would not appreciate that distinction, even as they revered both?
No true Scottsman fallacy. I have Catholic relatives who believe in and practice abortion. They have not been excommunicated. They openly advocate communism and radical feminism, even to the extent of identifying Mary as the co-redemptrix with Christ as an expression of that feminism. They regard Paul as a cranky old misogynist without authority in their lives. And they are Catholics in good standing with the Church, and will remain so, in practice, until the Church disciplines them. I'm not holding my breath. They are not the outliers in their context. Us cranky Bible-thumpers are the outliers.
Peace,
SR
It's not surprising to to see Polycarp using phrases that also appear in what was later received as Holy Scripture. He thought and wrote with the mind of the Church as did Paul and John. And, I think it quite likely that memory was much better in their day than it is today - they relied on it more.
My point is that the post Apostolic Fathers taught with the authority derived from their office; not from their ability to string Bible quotes together.
I can ratify that portion of the post...the rest, meh. Memory becomes spotty; thank God for search engines. Greek? Well, they have the best food; Russians have the best liurgical music. Dogma is the same. As with the Antiochians but as with the Greeks, I find myself distracted and confounded by the Byzantine chant. I'm sure that's the American in me.
You should familiarize yourself with Lampe before dismissing him sight unseen. The significance of his work is precisely that he marshaled an array of evidence unparalleled by previous efforts. Papal supremacy and succession are historical truth claims. If the only evidence for such claims are bare assertion by those not contemporaneous to the events, then those claims cannot be taken seriously as proof. Irenaeus at best is providing late, biased, and demonstrably erroneous testimony, again, not through ill will, but through the limits of circumstance. All of which makes an extremely poor factual foundation for making a claim of global authority.
Peace,
SR
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.