Hello Taom Ben Robert,
Peace be with you! As I said in my previous letter I am going to try to answer a few of your good objections at a time from the Catholic pov and also keep delving deeper into why we hold that Peter and his successors had and have a real authoritative office of New Davidic Prime minister(or Pope) over the entire Church. One thing I think we have to distinguish is authority and infallibility. What I would like to do first is to establish that Peter and his successors had real authority(fatherly authority ) over the Church universal. After all of that is explained then we can get to infallibility for the Pope and Church. But first thing is first. I will also get into some historical and archeological evidences which I think are powerful;. Here are the questions from you that I will try to answer first. As I said before this is a dialog and I am not expecting you or anyone to convert over my answers. What I think this will do is hopefully remove some roadblocks so that you can at least see why Catholics(including many converts to the Catholic faith from Protestantism and Judaism) see the evidence they do for the Papacy and its office historically and biblically. You gave some good objections that were well thought out. Here are some of what you said:
The church fathers have stated that the keys were given not to Peter alone , but to the other Apostles as well in Matt 18:18……… The Jerusalem councils decision was not of peters alone , and James stated the councils decision, not Peter………….. Many sees were founded by Peter ,all of equal authority…………. Both Peter and Paul founded the Church of Rome………….. Scripture states that the apostles are equal , that Paul rebuked Peter , and that all believers are called to be stones ( 1 Peter 2:4-9 )……….. Irenaeus and the east rebuked pope Victor , and only at a council was the Easter controversy settled
The fact that all the apostles share in the power of the keys I think this is a good objection. But did you know Catholics also teach this? We do not deny it. It’s true looking to Matt 18:15-20 we can see all the apostles and Bishops by extension have a sharing in that power of the keys to a “judicial and priestly” degree as they were made priest and judges of the new covenant ( for example compare Matt 18:15-20 with Deut 17:2-13 to see this typological connection and theological fulfillment of offices). The Catholic Church teaches this. All Bishops have a sharing in that authority to a degree. All Bishops and all Catholic priests according to Catholic theology have the power to bind and loose sins in confession which was part of the exercise of the keys. All Bishops have judicial authority in the diocese they are in. There is a real sharing in the power of the keys to degrees depending on your God given office. Peter alone and his successors share in the fullness of the power of the Keys. So to us there are levels. Remember Peter alone was singled out among the other apostles here earlier in Matthew and given that gift personally(Matt 16:13-19). One cannot say that about James or John. Although James and John share in the power to bind and loose as do all apostles, Peter alone was given this authority apart from the context of a council(where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name Matt 18:19-20). So Catholics (and many protestant bible scholars, Messianic, Jewish ones that I listed) view this singling out as Peter being called apart in a special way and given a special authority second of that to the king alone that reflects Is 22:20-24 in the role Davidic Prime minister of the new covenant. I personally (and so do many Catholics) feel this evidence is so strong especially since many non-Catholic bible scholars also see it. In other words we are not just trying to shoehorn in our own theology. There seems to be a real synthesis here between new and old covenant and Peters office.
But there is much more biblically one can say about why this is the case. Although all apostles are called to shepherd the flock Peter again even after committing 3 public mortal sins(denying Christ) is singled out again by Jesus to “feed my Sheep” 3 times(Jn 21:15-17). Thus we see him as being the chief Shepherd on earth after Jesus. Although Simon was weak and majorly sinful at times even to the fact that satan tried to sift him like wheat (satan is no dummy he knows if he strikes the leader the rest will fall) it was Peter again that Jesus prayed for so His faith may not fail and it was Peter given the duty by Jesus himself to strengthen all the brethren(Lk 22:31-32) this shows to me a clear leadership authority. It was Peter who was the first disciple to enter the empty tomb(LK 24:12) and the first disciple to whom the Risen Lord showed himself (Lk 24:34, 1 Cor 15:15).
Peter seems to be the undisputed and authoritative leader of the early Church. It was he who presided over the choice of the successor of Judas(Acts 1:15-26), And Peter who explained to the crowd the meaning of Pentecost(Acts 2:14-40), healed the lame begger at the temple(Acts 3:1-10). It was Peter who pronounced sentence on the sinners Ananais and Sapphira and who opened the Church to the gentiles(Acts 10:9-48).It was Peter that Paul went to learn from after his conversion(Gal 1:18). Early tradition claims Peter as first Bishop.
Now if you think all of this above is just Catholic propaganda think again. All of the information above I received from a Standard scholarly “protestant” source, namely the Oxford Dictionary of Popes (pages 5 & 6) written by protestant Anglican historian and clergyman J.N.D. Kelly.
Now on the council of Jerusalem we may politely disagree as well. I have no problem seeing collegiality in Acts 15. The Catholic Church teaches collegiality among the bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome. All one has to do is read Vatican II’s document Lumen Gentium to see this. I think many protestants are unaware of this. The Pope is not an overlord and he seeks council from the magisterium and collegiality in decision making (this is true even for his ex cathedra statements of which he has done only 2 or 3 times in history arguably by catholic scholars).
It seems to me and to other Catholics and to at least some protestant scholars like protestant scholar G. Campbell Morgan in his commentaries on the acts of the apostles (Pages 362-363) that James did not have the final say. In our view Peter opened and lead the council and declared the truths of that council initially. According to Morgan, James gave his opinion in line with Peter’s declaration and then they and bound on the Church what they did in collegiately. Here Morgan, the protestant scholar, would say
“it is absurd to believe at this moment that James gave personal opinion as the final word from which there could be no appeal” .
So collegiality yes. Vatican II also teaches collegiality and Papal authority. I do not see the 2 as mutually exclusive. So to me there is no problem with what Peter did at Acts 15 or what James or Barnabus did. At least that is our view.
Before I get to your 3rd objection I want to also give what I feel is powerful historical and archeological evidence for Peters office of leadership and authority in the early Church. A theologian and convert to the Catholic faith from the Lutheran Church Dr. William Marshner gave a fantastic lecture on you tube on the archeological evidences for Peters offices. (from scholar Dr. William Marshner you tube on How do we know the early Church). Dr. Marshner mentions that Eusebius(Church historian) had available to him evidence from early Christian art. There is a lot in Catecombs and early Churches and 4th century bascillicas to suggest Peter alone as new legal authority for the Church and most important apostle.
Dr. Marshner describes that in the artwork that "we can securely date to the 2nd century Our Lord Jesus is depicted 440 times. The 2nd most depicted figure is St. Peter who come in at 212 times. In addition to the 212 there are also 100 more times in which Peter is shown in the guise of Moses. For example Peter with horns. Peter is shown with the Keys, He is shown as a teacher sitting on a Rock and reading a book, where he is presented as Moses. Peter is often receiving a book from Jesus Christ and it says on the cover of the books “Lex or the Law of God or the Lord giveth the Law”.
"In 4th century after Christianity got above ground Peter was shown sitting in a chair authoritatively(cathedra). So Christ is seen as to Peter as God was to Moses on Mt Sinae giving the law which makes Peter the “new Legal authority” as seen in the eyes of the early Church,. This is very telling and important! Sometimes in arwork when Peter is shown as Moses, Peter is striking a rock and water comes out of the rock where Roman soldiers may drink. Sometimes Peter is shown carrying a Lamb like the Good shepherd( reflecting the Gospel of Johns 21’s role for Peter which singles him out as role of chief Shepherd of the Church). Peter is shown 312 times in total, the most after Jesus and St. Paul is only shown 47 little times. Then comes the group of the apostles as a whole with Peter shown 30 times, Moses 37 times, Daniel a couple of times Elijah a couple of times."
This archeological evidence to me made me see how powerfully clear it is that the Catholic(and some protestant scholars I mentioned ) were right about Peters prime ministry or leadership authority and office in the early Church. This is evident to me as he was seen as the new covenant Leader, Chief Shepherd, and new covenant legal authority over the entire Church in that early art work. This is far more then just a mere an honorable title this is a real authority as reflected in the IS 22 and Matt 16.
Now you had said that all of the sees Peter founded were of equal authority. This I must politely disagree on and so do many others. For me and for many reading the fathers of the Church and the early Councils are what really made us see Papal authority even in its roots forms. It was reading the apostolic father St. Ignatius of Antioch who I admired for his courage as while going to death to be martyred he wrote letters to the Churches encouraging them and asking them to remain strong for Christ sake in the faith. He was a great example! They are powerful letters. In his letter dated 107 A.D He writes to the Roman Church and speak of them in a different way then he does others.
“to the church also which holds the
presidency, in the location of the country of the
Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (
Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).
Here Ignatius of Antioch (Antioch also being a see that Peter left) seems to elevate the Roman Church and name it worthy of honor, blessing, success, etc and holds the presidency or other translations read “who presides over in love” (over the Church). To me this was a clear indication of Papal authority especially coming from an eastern father of a see of Peter. That is at least my opion and many Catholics and those who have read him and became Catholic.
But we can go earlier then that. If we go to the 1st century we see
Pope St. Clement of Rome in his epistle written to the Corthinians between 80-96 A.D making some interesting and authoritative statements outside of his diocese and jurisdiction . In His epistle to the Corinthians(which is the only authentic epistle by him we know of) he speaks of apostolic succession, Jewish fulfillment of offices, and then dares to settle and issue in Corinth commanding them to reinstate their elders and writing to them that if they do not obey the Church of Rome under his letter they will be in trouble by God.
“But if any disobey the words spoken by Him [God] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and no small danger… For you will give us great joy and gladness, if you obey what we have written through the Holy Spirit and root out the unlawful anger of your jealousy, in accordance with the appeal for peace and harmony which we have made in this letter" ("Letter" 59.1; 63.2)
I and many converts to the Catholic faith that were protestant and converted(like Dr. Lawrence Feingold, and Steve Ray) read this from Pope Clement and see this as real ancient evidence for Roman Papal authority over the Church.
Now you have to ask yourself this question. The Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem are closer to Corinth then Rome is. Yet Rome and its Bishop settles the dispute. Why? Why didn’t Corinth write to Alexandria? One could say Jerusalem was a mess so he didn’t write to it after the sack of it 20 year earlier but Alexandria sticks out. Why did he not write to them? Why did he write to Rome? I believe They did because they saw the Rome and the Papal office in the light of Matt 16:16-18, IS 22, LK 22, and Jn 21 in regards to the conferral of primacy of Peter and his successors. At least that is our view. I think its very reasonable.
For a much deeper explanation of this ancient document and why we Catholics view it as we do and why we see converts also view it this way like convert to the Catholic faith Dr. Lawrence Feingold, see his lecture on this entitle “Clement of Rome first know exercise of Papal Primacy”
http://www.hebrewcatholic.net/05-02-clement-of-rome-first-known-exercise-of-papal-primacy/
I think this next part is hopefully going to kill a few birds with one stone. You brought up St. Ireneaus rebuke of Pope Victor and Peter Rebuking Paul and the fact that the church of Rome is founded by both Peter and Paul. All of this is very very true. Ironically enough it is St. Ireneaus and his writings on this that lead me and many non Catholics to see early apostolic evidence for Papal authority from another eastern Father . Ireneaus writings on this topic have brought more protestant ministers into the Catholic Church in the last 30 years then any other I would say. Check out the coming home network to see more of this fact.
Lets deal with a few objections first. First its ok if Irenaus rebuked Pope Victor. Pope can be rebuked. Just like any pastor can be rebuked and yet still have a pastoral authority over his congregation so to any Pope can be corrected or rebuked. Peter was rebuked by Jesus and St. Paul yet Peter was still given the office of leadership in scripture. Many Popes have been corrected or rebuked by people in the Church. St. Catherine of Sienna corrected and rebuked Pope Gregory XI for example. But Gregory stil held his office of authority. Its very important to understand that being Pope does not mean you will always do things right! But even If Irenaus corrected Pope Victor about it does not change Pope Victor from his universal authority as Bishop of Rome. Actually to me it shows his authority. So notice when Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, bishops sought to change Victor’s mind,but they did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication. He had that power. They wanted to change his mind but that’s it. That shows universal authority of the Bishop of Rome even in apostolic times to me and many others.
But here is where Ireaneaus is so clear on Papal authority and the See of Rome being above all other sees(even the ones that Peter Founded)
“ 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 pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:3:2 (A.D. 180),in ANF,I:1415-416
Hear St. Ireneaus an Eastern apostolic Bishop, makes this clear in apostolic times that it’s a matter of necessity that all Churches agree with the Church of Rome because of her preeminence and authority via its apostolic succession and tradition. Those things are not comfortable to many non-Catholics as apostolic succession plays no big role in many Lutheran bodies nor is it required but to the early Church it was very important in matters of truth and authority and meant authoritative Episcopal succession especially of Roman Bishops because it was succession of an office that was divine and authoritative in nature via the new Davidic prime minister(as hinted in the succession in IS 22:20-24 and fulfilled in Matt 16:13-19).
Very Important is what Irenaeus does right after he says this. He immediately list all the Bishops of Rome from Peter all the way to Pope
Eleutherius! So to me it became crystal clear that even the east recognized a preeminent authority in the Church of Rome and the Bishops of Rome over all the other Churches. This is so clear not only to me but to many protestants I have talked to that they either A). try to ignore Ireneaus writings as in the case of one Baptist seminarian I know, or B) Say he was fatally flawed and not to listen to him as in other cases I have read from protestants because they often do not want to admit this. But its really clear when you read the whole thing.
My last piece of historical evidence for the universal authority of the Bishop of Rome over even the eastern Churches in this segment of the dialog comes from a heretical case which is very strong evidence. That is the case of Paul of Samosata.
In the third century Paul of Samosata was bishop of Antioch who fell into a Christological heresy and denied the personhood of the Logos. In 264 A.D. the bishops of Syria, Palestine, and Asia Minor convened in synod and condemned Paul’s heresy. Paul Promised to reform but never did and kept teaching and living not in accord with the council. So then the Eastern Bishops held a second council and then a third council met. They decided to depose and excommunicate him. They named a replacement Bishop named Domnus . Strangely however, Paul of Samosata refused to vacate his episcopal office. The bishops then appealed to Emperor Aurelian, who was in Antioch at that time. Now notice here that it would have been very easy for the Emperor to end the matter then and there and order replacement . But look what he did. The emperor instead of doing this himself asked Rome to decide who should be patriarch. The Bishop of Rome chose Domnus, and he was installed and Paul of Samosata obeyed and left his office. This to me was a clear example of early Papal authority in the Church of Rome and recognized even by the east.
As Fr .Ray Ryland in His article on Papal authority in Catholic Answers Magazine has stated
“Please do notice that this was a big controversy among
Eastern bishops, and it involved the rightful occupant of the third most important see in the Church, an Eastern see. Why did Aurelian turn to Rome for a decision? Why would he have the controversy settled in a way that would be a staggering affront to the Eastern bishops and to their authority . . .
unless they recognized the pope’s universal jurisdiction. That they did. None objected. The matter was settled. "
Roma locuta est" (Rome has spoken).”
Now I know I have a few more questions to answer. I definitely will get to the 2 Popes you brought up and I want to get to the Ecumenical council of Chalcedon because that council more then any I think shows Roman Papal Authority over the entire Church. I will write on that next but it will take some time as there is a lot to cover. God bless you. I hope you can see why we teach what we do even if you do not agree with it.
Before I go on I want to give a chance for you Taom to respond. Then afterward I will go even further into the councils and Popes you asked about from our Catholic pov. Thanks
