Skip to comments.The Primacy of Peter
Posted on 08/04/2012 1:55:40 PM PDT by NYer
Just a few days ago, I acquired my own copy of a book I remember from childhood (not, alas, from Catholic school): the silver jubilee edition of My Catholic Faith, by Bishop Louis Laravoire Morrow, S.T.D. (My Mission House, Kenosha, Wisconsin, 1961). Bishop Morrow served as the Bishop of the Diocese of Krishnagar, India, from 1939 to 1969; his book originally came out in 1936. My Catholic Faith is a concise summary of the Faith and is divided into three parts: What to Believe; What to Do; and Means of Grace. This worthy book unfortunately appears no longer to be in print, and was one of the many treasures swept out into the sea of oblivion by the flood of modernism that followed Vatican II. Sadly, many of the devotions, ceremonies and liturgical accoutrements that it describes were also swept away and are now foreign to most Latin Rite Catholics; but, thanks to our current Holy Father, they are beginning to come back. If you can find a copy on Amazon or from a used book seller, My Catholic Faith is a good place to learn about and rekindle a love for these once-common features of Catholic life.
Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?
Throughout Scripture we see evidence of what did not need to be specifically articulated. Evidence of Peter's primacy can be found in Acts 15. It describes the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostle Peter speaks to resolve the conflict faced by the congregation at that time, namely on the issue of circumcision. When St. Peter made the decision that bound all the faithful, discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. St. James, as the local Bishop then made the closing speech at the Council of Jerusalem, and conveyed Peter's decision.
Peace be with you
No offense intended, but that sounds more like an Occupy Wall Street rant than anything resembling actual history.
What I find even MORE interesting is the wool so many Catholics willingly allow to be pulled over their eyes so that they can continue to believe that myth. From the link http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html:
They were ignorant of any autocratic power residing jure divino in the Bishop of Rome. They regarded Latin authors with suspicions as the fautors of the unprimitive claims of the Bishop of Old Rome; hence if they were to be persuaded that the Papalist pretensions were Catholic, and thus induced to recognise them, the only way would be to produce evidence provided ostensibly from Greek sources.
Accordingly a Latin theologian drew up a sort of Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, lie mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was laid before Urban IV, who was deceived by it. He was thus able to use it in his correspondence with the Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, to prove that from the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.
Urban, moreover, sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas...The testimony of these extracts was to him of great value, as he believed that he had in them irrefragable proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church with absolute power. Consequently he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The grave result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth, whence resulted consequences which can hardly be fully estimated.
It was improbable that the Greeks, who had ample means of discovering the real character of these forgeries, should finally accept them and the teaching based on them; but in the West itself there were no theologians competent to expose the fraud, so that these forgeries were naturally held to be of weighty authority. The high esteem attached to the writings of St. Thomas was an additional reason why this should be the case (Edward Denny, Papalism (London: Rivingtons, 1912), pp. 114-117).
Von Döllinger elaborates on the far reaching influence of these forgeries, especially in their association with the authority of Aquinas, on succeeding generations of theologians and their extensive use as a defense of the papacy:
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudoIsidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
The authority claims of Roman Catholicism ultimately devolve upon the institution of the papacy. The papacy is the center and source from which all authority flows for Roman Catholicism. Rome has long claimed that this institution was established by Christ and has been in force in the Church from the very beginning. But the historical record gives a very different picture. This institution was promoted primarily through the falsification of historical fact through the extensive use of forgeries as Thomas Aquinas' apologetic for the papacy demonstrates. Forgery is its foundation. As an institution it was a much later development in Church history, beginning with the Gregorian reforms of pope Gregory VII in the 11th century and was restricted completely to the West.
The Eastern Chruch never accepted the false claims of the Roman Church and refused to submit to its insistence that the Bishop of Rome was supreme ruler of the Church. This they knew was not true to the historical record and was a perversion of the true teaching of Scripture, the papal exegesis of which was not taught by the Church fathers (For an analysis of the church father's interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16:18 please refer to the article on that subject on this web page)
Dr. Aristeides Papadakis is an Orthodox historian and Professor of Byzantine history at the University of Maryland. He gives the following analysis of the Eastern Churchs attitude towards the claims of the bishops of Rome especially as they were formulated in the 11th century Gregorian reforms. He points out that on the basis of the exegesis of scripture and the facts of history, the Eastern Church has consistently rejected the papal claims of Rome:
The Byzantine indictment against Rome also had a strong historical component. A major reason why Orthodox writers were unsympathetic to the Roman restatement of primacy was precisely because it was so totally lacking in historical precedent. Granted that by the twelfth century papal theorists had become experts in their ability to circumvent the inconvenient facts of history. And yet, the Byzantines were ever ready to hammer home the theme that the historical evidence was quite different. Although the Orthodox may not have known that Gregorian teaching was in part drawn from the forged decretals of pseudoIsidore (850s), they were quite certain that it was not based on catholic tradition in either its historical or canonical form. On this score, significantly, modern scholarship agrees with the Byzantine analysis. As it happens, contemporary historians have repeatedly argued that the universal episcopacy claimed by the eleventhcentury reformers would have been rejected by earlier papal incumbents as obscenely blasphemous (to borrow the phrase of a recent scholar). The title universal which was advanced formally at the time was actually explicitly rejected by earlier papal giants such as Gregory I. To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction. The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355).
It has been suggested that the conviction that papatus (a new term constructed on the analogy of episcopatus in the eleventh century) actually represented a rank or an order higher than that of bishop, was a radical revision of Church structure and government. The discontinuity was there and to dismiss it would be a serious oversight (Aristeides Papadakis, The Christian East and the Rise of the Papacy (Crestwood: St. Vladimirs, 1994), pp. 158-160, 166-167).
As to the total whitewash within the above concerning the Inquisition, there is a book which tells quite a different story, though I'd bet that in the world of apologetic, there is bound to be some web page somewhere with an in-depth pack 'o lies ad hominem attack against the author D. Juan Antonio LLorente
Available in Google books;
Go read that and get back to us.
Even the "insistence of popes" finally putting an end to it, is overall misleading, as it neglects large portions of the history of it all (only about 1500 years all told).
In the book one can indeed find that popes at various times tried to reign in the worst of the abuses, but even those changes if enacted would still have left many to be burned alive at the stake, starved to death in some cases, tortured in many others.
The details are chilling, but not simply for the results. The methodology of accusation and trial was a great injustice. The author outlines how such came to be, how it grew, and how it finally ended.
I dare say I find the same "spirit" that brought us that horror, still lurking in the shadows of the "Catholic mind". We have seen on these pages previously, not only the horrors of it all excused, when those things could not be fully minimized or explained away, but from some of those same apologists has been expressed the desire to resume the proceedings.
The denials we find today, are exceedingly weak, and believed seemingly only by the RCC faithful whom cannot face the truth concerning those dark centuries of ignorance & fear which had such a nightmarish grip on the minds of people, and was such a real terror among them, for so many centuries. All done in the name of God, in the name of Jesus Christ.
It was the devils work, plain and simple. For those who cannot see that, there is little hope for understanding.
-- Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter after his confession of faith at Caesarea Philippi. "Peter" means "Rock," signifying Peter's role as the foundation of the Church.
But "Catholic Answers" says:
At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42).
According to Scripture, Jesus first called Simon to follow Him and told him his new name was "Cephas" or "Peter". He was referred to by this name before the "confession of faith" incident. So, I would say the author of the OP is mistaken.
As to his assertion that this issue is a "major" Protestant disagreement, he errs again. It isn't that Peter was first among the apostles that is disputed, but that this translated into Peter being the first "Pope" of Rome and his power and authority magically handed down over the last two thousand years from one man to the next and, by implicit statements, every "Pope" has the SAME authority as Christ gave to Peter and the other Apostles up to including the ability to make "infallible" statements on the doctrines of the faith that ALL Christians are obligated to obey. This was what the Reformers fought against. It was what the Eastern Orthodox Church objected to before them and is what all other non-Catholic Christians STILL reject.
Simple. There is the universal Catholic Church anchored in sacred scripture, tradition, and revelation and the rest is all manure as history has shown.
“Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?”
“Rom 15:19-20 Through mighty signs and wonders, by the power of the Spirit of God; so that from Jerusalem, and round about unto Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. (20) Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon another man’s foundation:
The answer is: Any man already preaching the Gospel and handling an area. IOW, he goes where he is needed. Not sure how you can imagine Peter into that.
“Throughout Scripture we see evidence of what did not need to be specifically articulated. Evidence of Peter’s primacy can be found in Acts 15. It describes the Council of Jerusalem where the Apostle Peter speaks to resolve the conflict faced by the congregation at that time, namely on the issue of circumcision. When St. Peter made the decision that bound all the faithful, discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. St. James, as the local Bishop then made the closing speech at the Council of Jerusalem, and conveyed Peter’s decision.”
They accepted his decision because it was the obviously correct choice. You’d have to be a Roman Catholic to imagine it was just because he was allegedly the Pope, even after Paul apparently confronted him on the same topic here:
Gal 2:9-21 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision. (10) Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do. (11) But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. (12) For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. (13) And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. (14) But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? (15) We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, (16) Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. (17) But if, while we seek to be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners, is therefore Christ the minister of sin? God forbid. (18) For if I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a transgressor. (19) For I through the law am dead to the law, that I might live unto God. (20) I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
Paul here conducts himself not as a Bishop in submission to the Pope, but as an equal among equals, confronting him in public in front of the congregation. And there is no sense here that Peter grew angry or rebuked him in return.
In fact, Paul speaking up here “in public” is the same way Peter spoke up “in public” on condemning the issue of works required for salvation in Acts 15.
I have no doubt, however, that any Christian man could have stood up and said something, and would have been equally treated.
Rev 5:9-10 And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; (10) And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
You must be hitting your Priest’s secret stash of consecrated wine if you expect me to read a chapter out of a freakin book, when most of it doesn’t appear to be on the subject at hand. Hurts my eyes just attempting it. Can’t you at least excerpt the relevant part?
The Inquisitors were the thought police.
The writer himself was a Catholic priest, and part of "The Holy Office"...and was able to pour over volumes now lost to history. At the Vatican, no less.
The man had freedom to study in the library there for some years. Though the work may not be perfect in all ways, it cannot simply be dismissed as "manure". If we are to consider what "history has shown" we mustn't so quickly dismiss the sort of information brought to us here on this thread, in post #43 & somewhat re-iterated in #45.
Al else, claims to the contrary are manure, indeed AS HISTORY HAS SHOWN.
Thank you for bringing to us Paul’s words. They are illuminating.
Not understanding the need doesn’t make it go away, NL. As I said, the Scripture is the writings/thoughts of the apostles in the NT, and I’d like to see their thoughts on the subject at hand. It seems to me their opinions should be the guide. Thanks
There's a glaring error in that statement. Catholicism is not in and of itself a denomination. Since it is the Church Christ instituted, other Christian sects arose from it. Thus, the "types" of Christianity are merely variations of the original, the Catholic Church, and must be denominations.
No offense taken, but the Catholic Church at the time was quite clear that they objected to commoners reading vernacular translations.
“If you are unable to appreciate the depth of these arguments just say so. Why not just admit that the explanations are well beyond your intellectual grasp.”
Please confine your comments to rational statements, rather than attacks on my intelligence. Personal attacks benefit no one.
I’ve posted for years on these threads. There are not many who would claim I lack the intelligence to read your very long cut & paste - if I wanted. However, as I pointed out from just a small clip, your C&P is in error. Tyndale was not attacked for having an inaccurate translation - at least, no one has ever shown why his translation was more inaccurate than any other translation attempted. Thomas More tried and made a fool of himself.
“I guess Aquinas and Benedict XVI whom TIME magazine has been referred to as the theological Einstein of our time are all misguided.”
To the extent that they contradict the clear teaching of scripture, yes. There is no Purgatory. There are no indulgences. The scriptures know nothing about human priests offering sacrifices for our sins, a claim clearly rejected in the book of Hebrews. When forced to choose between Benedict XVI and scripture, I’ll choose the latter.
In the Council of Jerusalem, Peter most clearly was NOT acting as Pope. James was the head of the council.
And Paul rebuked Petr publicly for adopting false theology in Galatians.
If Peter was the Vicar of Christ, Paul wouldn’t have needed to defend his being an Apostle. All he would have to write is, “Peter, Vicar of Christ, has declared I am an Apostle” - and “discussion ceased and the people fell silent. They unanimously accepted his decision. “
It didn’t happen that way...
“Who was the other man that St. Paul was referring to in Romans 15:20?”
“20 And thus I aspired to preach the gospel, not where Christ was already named, so that I would not build on another mans foundation; 21 but as it is written,
They who had no news of Him shall see,
And they who have not heard shall understand.” - Romans 15
If he was referring to Peter (and I do not think he was), then he was expressly saying that Peter was NOT the foundation and that he was NOT building on Peter, but working apart from him.
No doubt the Arian heretics who were slaughtered by the millions when Iz Lame spread were sure they were correct as well and it's just a coincidence that Iz Lame was stopped at almost exactly limits of the spread of the Arian. Likewise, there are probably people who can't grasp the fact that God Himself slaughtered Core for exactly the same thing Protestantism teaches. Others, though, clearly understand that they're following heresy and play little games to feed their ego and deny the obvious which is that they're so dedicated to Self Worship that they cannot accept Christ placing anyone in authority over them.
No Priesthood, no sacrifice. No sacrifice, no salvation. That's the simple Truth of Scripture from beginning to end and Christ left His Church with a Priesthood that through the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to partake of the Eucharist which is the final and ongoing sacrifice.
This nation is clearly suffering due to being dedicated to what Jude explicitly warned against and yet those Jude calls clouds without rain can't understand why they're not bearing good fruit and continue to fragment. Seeing such folks argue that more of the same thing they've been doing will turn things around would be halarious if it wasn't so sad. Regards
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Again and again you keep ignoring the pointedly and indisputably strong scriptural and traditional bases of the rebuttal to your arguments made by the Augustinian Club and then conclude that this is a “personal “ attack. No, it is not when you engage in theological arguments and then side step the rebuttal. How else should one conclude? You think by repeating yourself that Catholic teaching “contradict(s) the clear teaching of scripture” you make your case. Scriptural interpretation is not simply taking a piece of text form here and there and making you case. Against the flow of a 2000 year plus tradition of interpretation by some of the most illustrious scholars and early Church fathers, and converts to Catholicism like the brilliant minds of GK Chesterton and Cardinal St. Thomas Newman, you make sophomoric contrary claims and hold out your exegetical views as pre-eminent. This is risible if not for the fact that it relates to notions of eternal salvation.
They set forth precedents for the exercise of sovereign authority of the popes over the universal Church prior to the fourth century and make it appear that the popes had always exercised sovereign dominion and had ultimate authority even over Church Councils. Nicholas I (858867) was the first to use them as the basis for advancing his claims of authority.
Dear friend, if anything is a forgery, it is the nonsensical trash posted at your link. Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:
And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our 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 desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when there were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D:
Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).
“No Priesthood, no sacrifice. No sacrifice, no salvation. That’s the simple Truth of Scripture from beginning to end and Christ left His Church with a Priesthood that through the power of the Holy Spirit enables us to partake of the Eucharist which is the final and ongoing sacrifice.”
Final and ongoing sacrifice. Isn’t that an inherent contradiction?
Joh_19:30 When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
What part of “It is finished” do you not understand?
Heb 7:26-27 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; (27) Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people’s: for this he did once, when he offered up himself.
What part of “Who needeth not daily” do you not understand? Maybe you argue it is okay once on Sundays!?
Here’s one that should cause you to go silent and end discussion (From your 1st Pope Peter):
1Pe 2:5 Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
What part of “ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood” and “ye are lively stones” do you NOT understand!? But yet you would like to bind me to your Roman precepts and be submitted to Priests, when I myself am a King and Priest in the sight of God?
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.