Papal Claims

Montalban · 05-20-05, 11:50 PM

This thread is a rebuttal to the Catholic teaching on Papal Supremacy. It is hoped to show that several claims made by the Catholic Church are erroneous on this matter. Their claim rests on a belief that St. Peter, of all the Apostles received a special commission from Jesus; and that following this assumption, all those who are descendant from him, in power; the Bishops of Rome, are eligible to the same status and power. This is opposed by the Orthodox position which states that all the Apostles received the fullness of Jesus’ teachings and commission. In this I deal first briefly with a general case in dispute of Papal power, and then address some specific claims currently circulating the internet.

On this Rock

St. Matthew 16:13 When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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." 20 Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
The Catholic Church maintains a belief that of all the Apostles of Jesus, Peter was the leader. That, because he was in this unique position, the office of Papacy is also the leader of all the churches.

This claim stems in part from Jesus saying “On this rock, I will build my Church”; Catholics assuming that ‘rock’ here refers to the Apostle Peter himself. And as a result of this, Peter’s successors are to inherit some special power over the whole church. But what in fact did the early church make of this statement?

A survey of early church fathers commentaries[1] shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.

One Father, Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3).[2]

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5).[3]

Turning again to Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the
rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the
Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art
Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which
thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living
God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself
upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and
I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the
Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.

“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that
Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
(Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25).[4]

Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held
primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.”
(Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics). [5]

Another claim deals with the belief that the power of loosing and binding was given to Peter alone. However Matthew 18:18 shows that all the Apostles received the same powers. Thus to turn to St. Augustine once more.

“He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen
among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul).[6]

Footnotes...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Jean de Launoy Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition”, p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… to determine how they interpreted these words. Also

http://www.tecmalta.org/tft305.htm

[2] Ibid, pp27-8. also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P4618_2490251

[3] Ibid, p28. Note that St. Cyprian re-occurs a number of times as one of the so-called ‘champions’ of Papal Primacy – we shall visit him again as well.

And at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/...#P6832_2190664

[4] Ibid, pp31-32 quoted also at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-0...#P4186_1789723

[5] Whelton, p34.

[6] Ibid, p-33.

Fantasea · 05-21-05, 12:52 AM

17 Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18 And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19 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 the foregoing passages:

1. Christ established His Church.
2. Christ said His Church would last for all time.
3. Christ appointed Peter as his Vicar on earth.
4. Christ invested Peter with the enumerated authority, which is infallibility in matters of faith or morals.
5. Christ knew that Peter would have to have a line of successors for all time.
6. Christ intended that successors to Peter would similarly be His Vicar on earth, similarly invested with the powers invested in Peter.

Benedict XVI is the two hundred sixty-fourth successor to Peter and is infallible when he teaches a matter of faith or morals.

Montalban · 05-21-05, 02:09 AM

Fantasea, you are not the only one to ignore scripture that is 'inconvenient' Thus you ignore the fact that Jesus gave ALL THE APOSTLES the same authority. Matthew 18:18
The false Catholic claim is worth repeating…

“In Matthew 16:19, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom" and the power to bind and loose. While the latter is later given to the other apostles (Matt. 18:18 ), the former is not. In Luke 22:28–32, Jesus assures the apostles that they all have authority, but then he singles out Peter, conferring upon him a special pastoral authority over the other disciples which he is to exercise by strengthening their faith (22:31–32).”[1]

This is just simply not true. Looking at the verses just preceding it,
Luke 22
24 Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest.
25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors.
26 But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves.
27 For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
28You are those who have stood by me in my trials.
29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me,
30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.[2]

We can see that Jesus had an opportunity to name Peter as the leader, and he does the very opposite. He says that they all should be equal. He speaks to them all when he says that they are to be appointed to the Kingdom. THEN he turns to speak to Simon Peter to tell him that he will betray Him.
St. Jerome
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named. (6th Book on Matthew)[3]

Origen
11. The Promise Given to Peter Not Restricted to Him, But Applicable to All Disciples Like Him.
But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall
prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, "The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it," hold
in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, "Upon this rock I will build My church"? Are the keys of the kingdom of
heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, "I will give unto thee the keys of the
kingdom of heaven," be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven," etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, "Receive ye the Holy Spirit," etc. Many then will say to the Saviour, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God; "but not all who say this will say it to Him, as not at all having learned it by the revelation of flesh and blood but by the Father in heaven Himself taking
away the veil that lay upon their heart, in order that after this "with unveiled face reflecting as a mirror the glory of the Lord" they may
speak through the Spirit of God saying concerning Him, "Lord Jesus," and to Him, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of "rock" who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved,78 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, "Thou art Peter," etc., down to the words, "prevail against it." But what is the "it"? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the church, or is it the church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds the church, nor against the church will the gates of Hades prevail; just as the way of a serpent upon a rock, according to what is written in the Proverbs, cannot be found. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which Christ builds the church, nor the church built by Jesus upon the rock; for the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside the rock and the church, but have no power against it.”[4]

Footnotes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp
[2] http://www.biblegateway.com/cgi-bin/...22&version=NIV
[3] Whelton, p32.
[4] http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm

Montalban · 05-21-05, 02:12 AM

We can see how the Apostles viewed each other in the book of Acts.
“This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.” (Acts 15:2).
That a) they were in dispute, and b) they sought the elders, not Peter alone.

When we look at the first council, that of Jerusalem (in Acts 15) it was
presided over by James, who also rendered the final judgment, even as
Peter was present.

”When they finished, St. James spoke up: ”It is my judgment, therefore, that we
should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.”
Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honoured them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.”[1]

Looking at Acts 15:22 we see “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, two men who were leaders among the brothers” That is, the council in session decided, not a pontiff, Peter.

There are a few important things to note about this council. St. James was the bishop of Jerusalem, therefore the meeting was held in his See, and thus he presided, not Peter, because Jerusalem was then the most important Christian centre.

Some Roman Catholics claim that when St. Peter spoke, all were silent. When someone spoke, whomever it was, no one else spoke over them. That's called politeness
Thus...
"When they finished, St. James spoke up:..."
That is, St. James waited his turn.
Earlier...
Acts 15:12
"The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul
telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the
Gentiles through them. "
They too had the floor, and everyone was silent.
c) MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL James clearly made the decision
Acts 15:19
"It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for
the Gentiles who are turning to God.
Note also...
Acts 15:23
"With them they sent the following letter: The apostles and elders, your
brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and
disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.
25
So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear
friends Barnabas and Paul-- 26 men who have risked their lives for the
name of our Lord Jesus Christ
That is, 'we' decided this, 'we' voted on this. Not "Peter" decided this.
Thus
"But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing
imperiously."
St. John Chrysotomon, Homily III on Acts 1:12[2]

Conclusion. The Apostels did not view Peter as the supreme head of the church

Footnotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] “The History of the Church” – II.I quoted in Ibid, pp38-9.

[2] Whelton, p33 and at http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-1...tm#P272_117779

Montalban · 05-21-05, 07:04 PM

Peter in the New Testament
What of 'the Rock'

St. Jerome in his 6th Book of Matthew said..."
What did other people understand the ‘rock’ to mean? “Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rock. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named."

Augustine of Hippo wrote “See what praises follow this faith. ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build this Church. What meaneth, ’Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock,’ saith He, ‘I will build My Church” (Homily X on John V. 1-3)

St. Cyprian stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.” (De Catholicae Ecclesia Unitate, cap. 4-5)

Again, Augustine states “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ.
“And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.” (Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25)
and recall, that the power of binding and loosing is given to all the Apostles (Mat 18:18).

All up, a Catholic Jean de Launoy did a survey of what the great fathers thought of this passage. His survey shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. We have about 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognise ‘the rock’ as meaning Peter alone.

And Acts
Acts 15 has an account of a meeting of the Apostles. Some sites seem to take it as significant that 'all were silent when Peter spoke'. However all were silent when James spoke too! That's called being polite.
Acts 15:12 "The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and St. Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. "
James as bishop presided, not Peter. James made the final declaration.
Acts 15:19 "It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God."

Thus to turn to Augustine once more “He had not the primacy over the disciples (in discipulos) but among the disciples (in disipulis). His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” (Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul)

Eusebius wrote of this in his church history (note he also quotes Clement – a supposed Papal prince). “This James, whom the early Christians surnamed the Righteous because of his outstanding virtue, was the first, as the records tell us, to be elected to the Episcopal throne of the Jerusalem church. Clement, in Outlines Book VI, puts it thus: “Peter, James, and John, after the Ascension of the Saviour, did not claim pre-eminence because the Saviour had especially honored them, but chose James the Righteous as Bishop of Jerusalem.” (“The History of the Church” – II.I)

St. Cyprian states ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come.” (Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics)

St. John Chrysotomon: "But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent; nothing imperiously." (Homily III on Acts 1:12)

ludahai · 05-24-05, 12:53 AM

Just another person successfully blinded to the true faith and church established by the Holy Spirit by the snake oil Protestants. Interesting that you quote scripture that was preserved by the CATHOLICS for nearly two thousand years, scriptures that were altered by Protestants four hundred years ago.

Fantasea · 05-24-05, 11:45 PM

Ten persons reading any chapter of the scriptures will arrive at ten different understandings. Ten more will do the same, and so on. It is for this reason that with every passing day, new religions with the word Christian in their names are being organized.

I claim no special understanding of theology and therefore hitch my wagon, as it were, to the teachings of the Vatican, which is able to trace a direct line to Christ.

Binary_Digit · 05-25-05, 03:38 PM

Good try Montalban, but cult members prefer rhetoric over reason. No offense intended to any Catholics who can actually explain their position with something more than calling the opposition "blind."

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

Fantasea · 05-25-05, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Binary_Digit

"I like your Christ, but I don't like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." - Gandhi

The problem faced by those tho refer to themselves as Christians is akin to the problem faced by used car salesmen, lawyers, politicians, and the like. The phoneys, crooks, con artists, hypocrites, and charletans among them get all the press and notariety.

Montalban · 05-25-05, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ludahai

Just another person successfully blinded to the true faith and church established by the Holy Spirit by the snake oil Protestants. Interesting that you quote scripture that was preserved by the CATHOLICS for nearly two thousand years, scriptures that were altered by Protestants four hundred years ago.

That's a statement of gross ignorance, because I am not Protestant. I am Orthodox. The Orthodox church has just as valid a claim to tradition (I believe a greater claim). (The previous Pope suggested that we two faiths were akin to two lungs; an analogy to this link to tradition).

You simply ignore this historical fact, make assumptions about my own faith, and attempt to go on from there.

Well done.