Talk:History of the Papacy/Primacy of Saint Peter

Untitled

The study of the New Testament offers "no proof that Peter was regarded as the first bishop of Rome", but it does "offer some foundation for both papacy and infallibility" as well as "some divine foundation for the Petrine function". Some historians argue that the notion that Peter was the first bishop of Rome and founded the Christian church there can be traced back no earlier than the third century. However the writings of the Church Father Irenaeus who wrote around 180 AD clearly indicate a belief that Peter "founded and organised" the Church at Rome.

Since the Reformation, the question of the origins of the papacy has been vital to all Christian churches. Some Protestant theologians stated that Peter was never in Rome, a view taken most prominently by Ferdinand Christian Baur and the Tübingen School. According to Baur, the Roman life and death of Peter was a politically motivated invention. Others, like Dressel in 1872, stated that Peter was in fact buried in Alexandria, Egypt or in Antioch. Today, those views are not expressed anymore. The traditional Catholic view is now generally accepted, that Peter actually lived and died in Rome. As Lutheran Adolf Harnack stated, "Tendentious-Protestant and tendentious-critical prejudice questioned the martyrdom of Peter in Rome. Both errors led to the truth."

Peter and the origins of the papacy

The circumstances of his life and death, and the exact location of his remains, continue to be largely a mystery. In light of continued persecution, early Christians did not leave much of a paper trail. Despite the special status of the church of Rome, there are only a few 1st century references to the life and circumstances of the Roman community and the activities of Peter.

Clement of Rome's letter to the Corinthians, written c. 96 described the awesome persecution of Christians in Rome as the “struggles in our time” and presented to the Corinthians its heroes, “first, the greatest and most just columns, the “good apostles” Peter and Paul.

St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote shortly afterwards his letters from the city of Smyrna to the Romans. He was condemned to die because of his Christian beliefs and wrote a last time to the Romans, that he would not command them as Peter and Paul did. These are seen by the Catholic Church as a clear indication of the existence of a certain early Papal primacy. Most Protestants argue that these documents refer only to a primacy of honour. Between the years 166 and 176, the Bishop of Corinth, Dionysius, stated with clear words, that both Paul and Peter were in Corinth and Rome, where they preached the Gospel. Around the year 190-200, the Roman priest Gaius writes in defense of his faith: Irenaeus (died 202) confirms as well the foundation of the Catholic Church through Peter and Paul.

Biblical foundations

While the historical origins of the papacy and circumstances of Peter’s life in Rome are not fully documented, the biblical basis in the New Testament provides a clearer picture. In all New Testament gospels, Peter is the leader or spokesman of the Apostles. (However, in the book of Acts, and evidenced in Paul's epistle to the Galatians, James the brother of Jesus appeared to take the lead, with Peter possibly submitting to his authority.) Peter also suggests that Pauls writings are to be considered scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16). When the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke mention the apostles, they mention Peter first. “In each Gospel, he is the first disciple, to be called by Jesus. However Duffy doesn't consider that John contains the eyewitness account and Matthew, Mark and Luke are not. John's gospel shows that both John and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist and were told to follow the "Lamb of God". So it is more likely that John and Andrew were disciples of John the Baptist and were told to follow Jesus and became his first disciples (John 1:35-40). Most Protestants find it difficult to resolve the primacy of Peter and not consider Paul or even John as a papal authority. They argue there is no scriptural basis for any specific authority of any of the disciples, apostles or bishops (especially since Christ didn't mention that type). They consider the verse Catholics use to promote Peter to papal status is simply a misunderstanding of the scripture which should be interpreted to mean that "Upon this Rock" simply means through the divine revelation of the Spirit will this church be established and not the person of Peter. They also point out that if the Pope is infallible then Peter would not have had to be corrected by Paul for his belief in only the circumcised and Jew can come to Christ. And Paul wouldn't have been so bold to argue with Peter (the Pope) so badly that they needed to part company.

The dogma and tradition of the Catholic Church teach that the institution of the papacy was mandated by Jesus in the Biblical passages in the Gospel of Matthew:

• You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

In Matthew, the centrality of Peter is not only manifested in this quote. After the resurrection, Jesus Christ repeats his mandate to Peter (John, 21:15) Luke cites a mandate from Jesus to Peter to “strengthen his brothers” (Luke, 22:31). Historical opposition to the Catholic interpretation of these biblical quotes saw them as “cheap falsification” and late additions to the original scriptures. Another source of disagreement was the Catholic interpretation of "ecclesia" (church) in the scriptures. Some non-Catholic scholars maintained that Christ did not intend to create a formal Church at all.

Leadership of the early church

Saint Paul, who disagreed on several issues with Saint Peter, shares with him the same Feast Day, June 29.

The Catholic Church that Jesus appointed Peter as the first of the apostles and head of his Church, and that he was martyred in Rome. Peter himself acted accordingly: He spoke in the name of the others (Math16,16); he talked to the large gathering of people on the first Pentecost, he defended the case of the Apostles before the High Council, he chastised Simon Magnus, he accepted the first Gentiles into the Church, and presided the first Apostolic Council. The Acts of the Apostles, chapters 1-2, 10-11, and 15 show that Saint Peter had a leadership role among the early Christian church in Jerusalem. Yet there were also conflicts with Saint Paul (Gal 2,9 2,11), who disagreed at times with Peter. These conflicts indicate, that "the primacy as guarantor for unity and truth was not as necessary", in the much smaller Early Church, as it was later the case.

Some historians suggest that various Christian communities had a group of presbyter-bishops functioning as leaders of the local church, and that eventually this evolved into a monarchical episcopacy in certain cities. The monarchical episcopacy probably developed in other churches in Christianity before it took shape in Rome. For example, it has been conjectured that Antioch may have been one of the first Christian communities to have adopted such a structure. The emergence of a single bishop in Rome probably did not arise until the middle of the second century. Linus, Cletus and Clement were probably prominent presbyter-bishops but not necessarily monarchical bishops. But this suggestion is challenged, for example, Ignatius of Antioch in 107 states that the faithful of each local church were controlled by a bishop. Eventually, Rome followed the example of other Christian communities and structured itself after the model of the empire with one presbyter bishop in charge ..." The organizational structure Catholic Church subsequently evolved into the present form of one bishop supported by a college of presbyters.

Eastern Orthodox view

Eastern Orthodox theologians agree that in Matthew 16:18, "rock" is a likely reference to Peter personally. Moreover, Eastern Orthodox theologians follow such Fathers as St. John Chrysostom by clarifying that "rock" simultaneously refers to Peter (instrumentally) as well as Peter's confession of faith which has ultimate significance in establishing the Church.

Some Orthodox scholars do not see Peter has being in any way above the other apostles, arguing that Peter did not have power and authority over them during Christ's public ministry. According to this view, Peter has a weak symbolic primacy or primacy of honor (in the sense of a purely honorary primacy). Other Orthodox scholars follow St. John Chrysostom and the Byzantine tradition in seeing Peter as the icon of the episcopate with his title of protos (first) implying a certain level of authority over the other apostles. In this traditional Orthodox and Patristic view, the Church is the local Eucharistic assembly ("the diocese" in today's terminology) and the one who holds the "Chair of Peter" (St. Cyprian's expression) is the bishop. As a result, the primary of Peter is relevant to the relationship between the bishop and the presbyters, not between the bishop of Rome and the other bishops who are all equally holding Peter's chair.

Orthodox historians also maintain that Rome's authority in the early Eastern Roman (or Byzantine) empire was recognized only partially because of Rome's Petrine character, and that this factor was not the decisive issue. Moreover, the Orthodox view is that Rome's privileges were not understood as an absolute power (i.e., the difference between primacy and supremacy). In the East, there were numerous "apostolic sees", Jerusalem being considered the "mother of all churches," and the bishop of Antioch could also claim the title of successor to Peter, being that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch. "Canon 28 of Chalcedon was for [the Byzantines] one of the essential texts for the organization of the Church: 'It is for right reasons that the accorded privileges to old Rome, for this city was the seat of the Emperor and the Senate.' ... The reason why the Roman Church had been accorded an incontestable precedence over all other apostolic churches was that its Petrine and Pauline 'apostolicity' was in fact added to the city's position as the capital city, and only the conjunction of both of these elements gave the Bishop of Rome the right to occupy the place of a primate in the Christian world with the consensus of all the churches."

Protestant scholars view the role of Peter differently. According to James L. Barker, a scholar and missionary for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church), the position of the bishop of Rome was not regarded as significantly different from the bishops of Antioch or Jerusalem. He contends that, insofar as the bishop of Rome was accorded any special status, it was more as a mediator than as a ruler; and that people appealed to the bishop of Rome to help mediate disputes arising over issues like Gnosticism, not to deliver a definitive statement of Christian orthodoxy. In the Catholic view, it is this settling of disputes, which Peter and his successors engaged in, which established Christian orthodoxy.

The ongoing persecutions against Christians required flexibility, hiding and decentralization. The early Church developed not only views on the bishop of Rome but also on bishops and priests in general. Some evidence points to committees of priests (presbyteroi / πρεσβυτεροι) or Bishops (episkopoi / επίσκoποι). This was standard in Christian communities all over the Roman empire. In the second century "The letters of Ignatius of, Antioch, generally dated to about 115, are the first Christian documents that witness to the presence of an episkopoi who is clearly distinct from the presbyterate and is pastor of the whole church of a city." Letters from Ignatius of Antioch describe churches led by a single bishop, who was merely assisted by the presbyters and deacons.

Primacy of Rome

Main article: Primacy of the Roman Pontiff

In the early history of Christianity, five cities emerged as important centers of Christianity: Rome, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

The power of the Bishop of Rome increased as the imperial power of the Emperor declined. Edicts of the Emperor Theodosius II and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Roman bishop "as Rector of the whole Church." The Emperor Justinian, who was living in the East in Constantinople, in the sixth century published a similar decree. These proclamations did not create the office of the Pope but from the sixth century onward the Bishop of Rome's power and prestige increased so dramatically that the title of "Pope" began to fit the Bishop of Rome best.

So the Pope has power because the Emperors made edicts???

Montalban (talk) 12:36, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

To me - a difference in what is said

Difference between Catholic quotes and reality

Here’s what Catholic sites quote - “An edict of Theodosius III and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Bishop of Rome “Rector of the whole church.”Justinian published a similar decree. -Jean Henri Merle d 'Aubigné

Here’s what he said (with what they leave out) An edict of Theodosius III and of Valentinian III proclaimed the Bishop of Rome “Rector of the whole church.” Justinian published a similar decree. These edicts did not contain all that the popes pretended to see in them; but in those times of ignorance it was easy for them to secure that interpretation which was most favourable to themselves.”

d 'Aubigné, J. H. M, (1857) History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, Book 1, (Robert Carter Brothers; NY), pp41-42 Montalban (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2011 (UTC)