St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome

St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome | Stephen K. Ray | From
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church




There is little in
the history of the Church that has been more heatedly contested than the
primacy of Peter and the See of Rome. History is replete with examples of
authority spurned, and the history of the Church is no different. As we proceed
with this overview of history, we will allow the Scriptures, the voice of the


apostles, and the testimony of the early centuries of the Christian community
to speak for themselves. In many quarters, over the last few centuries, the din
of opposition and uninformed dissent has drowned out the voices of these
ancient witnesses. Novel ideas, like a voracious flood, have tried to erode the
foundations and the clear historical precedents provided by the Holy Spirit's
work in the primitive Church.



History has a clear and distinct voice, but it does not force itself upon us
uninvited. History is prudent and waits quietly to be discovered. Conversely,
the ingenious inventions of recent theologians and innovators are loud and
demanding, bursting upon our ears and minds, our lives and hearts, demanding
our immediate attention and loyalties. The riches of history fall quietly aside
as the prattling innovators blast their trumpets and loudly parade their
followers through new streets, trampling the knowledge of the ages under their
cumulative feet.



Here we will allow the voices of the past to speak again--for themselves. And
what the reader will find is that the utterances of the past still resound with
one voice, with clarity and force. To study those who have gone before us, following
in the footsteps of the Lord Jesus, his apostles, and our Fathers in the faith
is to lose interest in much of the clamor of modern notions. We find these
theological innovations and ecclesiastical groups poorly devised, if not
disingenuous. This is what John Henry Newman, a Protestant clergyman at the
time, found as he studied the primitive Church. He concluded: "To be deep
in history is to cease being a Protestant." [1] As the Protestant churches
continue to fragment and lose the fervor and orthodoxy of their past reform
efforts, many Evangelicals and Fundamentalists are looking to the past to hear
what the early Fathers have to say today. They are beginning to listen to the
unobtrusive voice of the early Church, and they are finding it is quite different
from what they have been taught. Reading the writings of the early Church
allows us to tap into the very heartbeat of the apostolic teaching and
tradition of the primitive Church--the very Church bequeathed to us by the
apostles.



Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in
Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant
role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to
several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon
the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is
entitled Peter and the Rock and
asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, "The contemporary
Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the
biblical understanding of the early church doctors." To ascertain whether
or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But
along with what the Fathers say,
we need to hear their silence as well.


While reading Webster's book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the
Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church's teaching on the
Papacy, that there are no citations "revealed" in his book in which a
Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or
the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are
supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there
a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This
is a silence that speaks volumes! We may
find differing interpretations of Peter's primacy, which is what we should
expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.



I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who
denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster's response was
very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book.
His return E-mail stated, "No father denies that Peter had a primacy or
that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted
those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later
centuries that primacy and succession were 'exclusively' related to the bishops
of Rome." [2] What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary
truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement
with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome's
primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work
out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy.



The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert
or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving
from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in
Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster
freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the
appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor's
authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a
decree of Stephen's on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the
Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The
bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee
the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and
the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate,
or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end
of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said,
"No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to
require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?" If the jurisdictional
primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have
opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The
silence is profound.



As doctrines develop, as authority develops, as even a family or society
develops, there is discussion relating to authority and its exercise. Amazingly
enough, this is also true for the canon of the New Testament, which was not
finally collected and codified for almost four hundred years after the death of
Christ. Does the fact that there were various interpretations of what the New
Testament was, or which books it contained--a discussion, by the way, that
raised its head again in the teaching of Martin Luther--in any way prove that
somehow the New Testament held by the Protestant is uncertain or in doubt
because there were various applications or perceptions of that canon in the
early years? The faithful Christian may have believed various things about the
canon, but he never denied that the Scriptures held a special place. He may
have clung to a different collection of books, yet he always understood that
there were "apostolic" books. In the same way, early Fathers, especially
Eastern Fathers, may have defined the primacy of Peter and the supremacy of his
successors in nuanced ways, yet they never denied that the primacy or authority
was attached to Peter and his See in Rome.



Authority has always been an object of distrust and, very often, defiance. The
nation of Israel refused to hear authority: they rejected the authority of the
prophets [3] and rejected their Messiah sent by the Father. [4] The apostles
themselves were abused and rejected. [5] Should it surprise us that many in our
present day reject and demean the unifying authority God has ordained in his
Church? In the primitive Church, as we learn from St. Irenaeus, the greatest
theologian of the second century, many groups splintered off from the apostolic
Church and "assembled in unauthorized meetings". [6] Rejecting the
Church and spurning her shepherd is nothing new to our day.



Christians of many traditions are currently espousing recent Protestant
traditions and modern schisms; yet they all claim the early Church as their own--asserting
that they are the rightful heirs to the teachings of our Lord, the apostles,
and the Fathers of the apostolic Church. Are they? Do they have a legitimate
claim to the theology of the early Church? Was the early Church essentially
"Protestant" in her theology and polity, or was she Catholic?



Much of the distinctive character of the Church through the centuries has been
based on the teaching concerning Peter and his place within the apostolic
company and in the Church. Was he chosen for a special position? Did Jesus
separate Peter out from the Twelve? Did Peter have authority over the body of
Christ, the one sheepfold? Was the position of bishop carried on by his
successors? How did the first generations of Christians relate to Peter? These
are questions we will try to answer as we proceed with this study.



Holy Scripture must be interpreted, since it is not laid out simply in the form
of a Church manual or textbook. One principle of proper interpretation involves
studying a topic or passage within its context, both the immediate context and
the context of the whole Bible. If this is neglected or done poorly, a plethora
of problems arises. Historical context must also be taken into account.



In studying Peter and the subject of primacy, it is especially important to
consider who or what makes up the foundation of the Church. The many facets of
the Church are like the multiple surfaces of a diamond glistening in the
sunlight. These facets are written about from different angles, and the
metaphors used--foundations, builders, stones, and so on--are as varied as the
gem's surfaces. In grammar school we learn not to mix metaphors. Mixing
metaphors makes clear communication difficult and can lead to
misunderstandings. This confusion of context is especially pronounced in much
of the Fundamentalist and Evangelical Protestant understanding of the
foundation of the Church. However, even George Salmon, no friend to Catholic
teaching (in fact he has proven himself a hero to many opposed to the Catholic
Church and wrote The Infallibility of the Church to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church),
understood the need to understand properly the metaphors used in Scripture. I
provide an extended quotation from Salmon's book to lay the foundation (pun
intended) for understanding the biblical and patristic references to Peter and
the foundation of the Church.

It is undoubtedly the doctrine of Scripture that Christ is the only foundation
[of the Church]: "other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which
is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor 3:11). Yet we must remember that the same metaphor
may be used to illustrate different truths, and so, according to circumstances,
may have different significations. The same Paul who has called Christ the only
foundation, tells his Ephesian converts (2:20):--"Ye are built upon the
foundation of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief
corner-stone." And in like manner we read (Rev 21:14) :--"The wall of
the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles
of the Lamb." How is it that there can be no other foundation but Christ,
and yet that the Apostles are spoken of as foundations? Plainly because the
metaphor is used with different applications. Christ alone is that foundation,
from being joined to which the whole building of the Church derives its unity
and stability, and gains strength to defy all the assaults of hell. But, in the
same manner as any human institution is said to be founded by those men to whom
it owes its origin, so we may call those men the foundation of the Church whom
God honoured by using them as His instruments in the establishment of it; who
were themselves laid as the first living stones in that holy temple, and on
whom the other stones of that temple were laid; for it was on their testimony
that others received the truth, so that our faith rests on theirs; and (humanly
speaking) it is because they believed that we believe. So, again, in like
manner, we are forbidden to call anyone on earth our Father, "for one is
our Father which is in heaven." And yet, in another sense, Paul did not
scruple to call himself the spiritual father of those whom he had begotten in
the Gospel. You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and
that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter's also being, in a
different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the
Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some,
in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to
Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone. [7]

Our current study comprises four interrelated topics. The first two sections
examine the life and ministry of the Apostle Peter from biblical and historical
sources. The last two sections examine the continuing authority of Peter
through the centuries, carried on through apostolic succession and the primacy
of Rome. We divide the study in this way:



1. The Life and Ministry of Peter

A. Biblical study: Peter the man, the apostle, the rock: What is his place in
the teachings of Jesus and in the New Testament?


B. Historical study: Did Peter travel to Rome, oversee the Church as bishop,
and die a martyr's death in the city of Rome?

2. The Primacy of Peter in the Early Church

A. Earliest document study: The primacy of Rome in the earliest non-canonical
writings of the Church, authored by Clement of Rome and Ignatius of Antioch.


B. Early Church study: Peter and the primacy of Rome taught and practiced
throughout the first five centuries.

Certainly, it is not possible to compile every passage from the Fathers that pertains to the study of Peter and the
primacy. This is true, first of all, because such passages are too abundant
and, secondly, because many times the primacy is not demonstrated by written
teachings per se, but by the actions
of the Fathers in particular historical situations. Some Fathers write of the
Petrine primacy and later change their stance as they move away from orthodoxy
or from a literal understanding of Scripture or when they enter into a personal
conflict with the bishop of Rome. Lately, several books have come out that are
hostile to the Catholic Church's teaching on papal primacy (we will discuss
these books in the course of our study). A perusal of these books shows that
their inability to deal fairly with the issue stems from their tendency to
"proof-text", by which they point out things that seem to support
their contentions and ignore everything that does not.



Another reason these opponents find it difficult to comprehend the Papacy is a
perspective, inherited from the Protestant Reformation, that is essentially
anti-sacramental, anti-mediational, and anti-incarnational. God's economy,
however, always involves mediation. The people of God, for example, stepped
back and demanded that God not speak to them directly, for they were afraid and
stood at a distance. Then they said to Moses, "You speak to us, and we
will hear; but let not God speak to us, lest we die" (Ex 20:19). Take
another example--Paul. God could very well have "saved" him directly,
but instead the great Paul was sent to the lowly Ananias for baptism and
instructions. Paul later went to Peter for approval and to make sure he
"was not running in vain", even though he had received revelations and
had even been taken up to the "third heaven" (2 Cor 12:2). No
Christian baptizes himself; this is done though the mediating agency of another
person. Without an understanding of how God works through mediation, it is
difficult to understand the fullness of the faith. [8]



It would take volumes to deal thoroughly with every biblical passage, every
Father's writings, and every argument against the Papacy. However, we will
provide ample material to establish the firm foundation of Catholic teaching
and to refute the opposition. In the process we will attempt to be fair with
the material, analyzing not only the Catholic position but the interpretation
espoused by the opposition. Much can be said about each of these topics and
detailed accounts can be read from other sources listed in the bibliography.



In our journey through the Scriptures and the primitive Church, we will consult
our first brethren in Christ. We will conclude by looking at the current
teaching of the Catholic Church as well as the widespread opposition. Now let
us journey back in time to the New Testament period and the generations that
followed in the footsteps and the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.



ENDNOTES:



[1] John Henry Cardinal Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, in Conscience, Consensus, and the
Development of Doctrine (New York:
Doubleday, 1992), 50.



[2] E-mail from William Webster dated August 16, 1997.



[3] Mt 23:37: "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning
those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children
together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!"



[4] Jn 1:10-11: "He was in the world, and the world was made through him,
yet the world knew him not. He came to his own home, and his own people
received him not."



[5] Paul says in 2 Timothy 1: 15, "You are aware that all who are in Asia
turned away from me, and among them Phygelus and Hermogenes." The Apostle
John writes in 1 John 2:19, "They went out from us, but they were not
really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but
they went out, in order that it might be shown that they all are not of
us."



[6] "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" (Irenaeus, Against
Heresies 3, 3, 2, in The
Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts
and James Donaldson, rev. A. Cleveland Coxe [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans,
1985], 1:415 [hereafter ANF]).



[7] George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (London: John Murray, 1914), 338-39.



[8] The objection will arise, "But we have only 'one mediator between God
and men, the man Christ Jesus'" (1 Tim 2:5). To this the Catholic offers a
hearty Amen! Yet we see, not four
verses earlier, Paul commanding Timothy to pray for all men--to intercede (from
the Latin intercedere, to
intervene or go between, to mediate). Yes, Jesus is the mediator of the New
Covenant, for such a unique covenant takes a unique mediator (Heb 8:6). But do
we assume that, because Christ is the mediator of a better covenant, there is
no longer any mediation in the Church? Prayer is mediation. We are mediating God's message to a sinful world when
we preach the gospel. No finite human being can mediate an eternal covenant
between God and man, but a pastor can certainly mediate God's word, and a
simple soul can certainly intercede for the mighty. Mediation is alive and well
as we enter into the New Covenant and participate in the mediating work of
Christ.








Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles





• The Papacy and Ecumenism |
Rev. Adriano Garuti, O.F.M.


• On the Papacy, John Paul II, and the Nature of the Church |
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger


• Peter and Succession |
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger

• "Primacy in Love": The Chair Altar of Saint Peter's in Rome | Joseph
Cardinal Ratzinger

• Church Authority and the Petrine Element | Hans Urs von Balthasar


• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll


• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley


• Authority and Dissent in the Catholic Church | Dr. William E. May


• Exploring the Catholic Faith! | An Interview with Diane Eriksen


• Understanding The Hierarchy of Truths | Douglas Bushman, S.T.L.











Stephen K. Ray was raised in a devout, loving Baptist family. His father was
a deacon and Bible teacher and Stephen was very involved in the Baptist
Church as a teacher of Biblical studies and lectured on a wide range of
topics. Steve and his wife Janet entered the Catholic Church in 1994. In
addition to running a family business, Steve spends time researching, writing,
and teaching about the Catholic Faith. He is the author of Crossing
the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church, Upon
This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early
Church, and St.
John's Gospel: A Bible Study and Commentary . He is currently producing
a 10-video series for Ignatius Press called The
Footprints of God: The Story of Salvation From Abraham to Augustine ,
filmed on location in the Holy Land. His website is www.catholic-convert.com.