It is both an interesting and disturbing study to see how Peter went from pre-eminence to primacy and finally to supremacy without his even knowing it.
We have already touched on the fact that not all the ECFs and especially the more noble and scholarly never believed that the Rock in Matthew 16 was Peter but rather the confession God revealed to him.
According to the RCC position Christ established his church as a hierarchical society composed of subjects and leaders. Above this society of believers He ordained a college of apostles with the infallible authority of teaching, legislating, and judging all things concerning doctrine and morals.
Because in every organized body there is need of a head or president to whom the other members must obey or be subject, so Christ in His church appointed one to have full authority and primacy both upon the faithful and upon the bishops. Conclusion of such reasoning is that Peter was made by divine right the first pope and bishop of Rome, Prince of the apostles, Vicar of Christ, and human foundation of the church (a Catholic dictionary, p. 402)
Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of our Fathers, page 95 says, Our Lord conferred on Saint Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His Holy Church, and that same spiritual supremacy has always resided with the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of Saint Peter. Consequently to be true and the laity, must be in communion with the see of Rome, followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy where Peter rules in the person of his successor
In explaining such a doctrine the theologians go on to say, that Peters primacy is not merely one of honor but also of jurisdiction which comprises the power of legislating, of judging and of securing obedience and submission by appropriate sanctions. (a catholic dictionary p 412) This last affirmation was made dogmatic pronouncement at the council of Florence (1439) against the bishops who believed that the authority of the general council was superior to that of the Roman chair.
We can make a list of all the ways Peter was pre-eminent that we can agree on. His opening of the kingdom on Pentecost, and later to the Samaritans and gentiles. However this pre-eminence has nothing to do with the so-called primacy advocated by Rome and especially the later day supremacy we now see in the papacy. Jesus himself said, you know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them and that they are the greater exercise power over them. It shall not be so among you (Mt 20:25-26). The pre-eminence of Peter early on was to him personally and was never said to be passed on in any way. In fact as soon as the opening of the kingdom to the three classes was accomplished (Jews, Samaritans and gentiles) we see Peter taking a subordinate role, and in humble labors among the circumcision, disappeared from the pages of scripture and history.
In Jerusalem we see James taking the pre-eminence of that congregation as can be seen in the Jerusalem council. Peter was to go to the circumcision and we now see the Apostle Paul as pre-eminent among the gentile churches. The book of acts closes its account of the work of Peter at the Jerusalem council and continues exclusively with the works of Paul. In this scriptural picture of Peter there is no room for the dictatorial assumptions made by unscrupulous men in order to build up a precedent for later claims.
Our scriptures have no clue whatsoever of Peter being the supreme or absolute leader of the church. These conclusions came along later in the long and dreadful struggle between the eastern and western churches for the dominance of Christendom. Again Jesus Himself said, whosoever will be the greater among you will be your minister (diakonos = servant). And he that will be first among you will be your servant (Mt 20:26-27). Also it must be noted that had Jesus intended Peter or any of the apostles to be the supreme ruler of the church on earth He would certainly have said so. Even the other apostles did not recognize Peter as such which can be seen from Jesus last night at the supper some 1 years after Matthew 16 when they are still arguing over who will be the greatest in the kingdom Jesus is going to establish. Even in Peters own epistles he addresses his readers as fellow elders and not even an apostle or chef apostle or chief elder. It would seem that neither the apostles nor Peter himself saw this supremacy Rome now teaches. In fact after the supposed elevation of Peter with some mythical keys the apostles no less argued 3 times as to whom would be the greatest. Seems they did not see Peter as Rome does.
The apostles saw themselves as equal co-workers in and for the kingdom of God. Besides in Galatians 2:9 Paul mentions James and John as being reputed pillars in the church along with Peter whom he rebuked publicly and to his face because he was to be blamed for leading Barnabas and others into a sin already settled at the Jerusalem council. (2:14). Catholics will say it was a matter of discipline and consequently not involving the authority of Peter; but no pope today would tolerate an inferior accusing him publicly of 1) inconsistency, 2) practical calumny of Christ, 3) transgression of the law, 4) making void the gift of God (2:14-21). It can also be plainly seen that Paul exercised more jurisdiction upon the primitive churches than Peter or any other apostle. Even when the successor to Judas was to be selected it was not Peter to appoint him, but the multitude of believers present by agreement put forth the two candidates. (acts 1:15-26). Again to the Jerusalem council we see first James as the president of the council but the final decrees in favor of the gentile converts were issued in the name of the apostles, of the elders and of the brethren and not Peter (Acts 15).
When Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey, they did not go to see Peter, but reported directly to the church at Antioch (Acts 14:26). On Pauls return from his third missionary journey he did not report to Peter, but went unto James and all the elders were assembled (Acts 21:1
. Paul also claims that Peter had no jurisdiction over him in Galatians 2:7-8 by saying, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision as to Peter was that of the circumcision showing first that Peters authority if any was not universal but to the Jewish community. Even Pauls own words, Other foundations can no man lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus
Even Irenaeus who, while he seems to exalt the Roman see for its apostolic principality (Both Peter and Paul), in another notable instance repudiates the claims of the Roman bishop to dictate to the bishops of other dioceses. This was on the occasion of a sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor I (190-202) upon certain oriental bishops on account of their refusal to celebrate Easter at a particular time. We see also Tertullian implicitly intimating his disapproval in his treatise De Pudicitia (sec 1) of the assumption by the Roman bishop of the titles of pontifex maximus (supreme pontiff) and episcopus episcoporum (bishop of bishops). In another of his treatises (De Virg. Velandis, Migne, Patrol., pp767-76
he distinctly impugns the claim made by Zephyrinus (202-21
of a certain superiority in the Roman see derived as a tradition from Peter. It was during this time that Origen, visiting Rome, utters the famous dictum, for if you hold that the whole church was built by God upon Peter alone, what will you say concerning John, the son of thunder, and each of the other apostles (Migne, Patrol, Graeca, vol. 13, 397)
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (246-25
while affirming the equality of bishops one with another, explicitly condemns the undue interference of the Roman bishop in the affairs of other dioceses with words such as these, none of us has ever dared to proclaim himself bishop of bishops, forcing with tyrannical terror the obedience of his colleaguesbut all are expecting the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, the only one who has the authority of appointing us in the government of His church, and the right of judging our actions (Epist. 69). Later on Jerome expressly attributed the institution of the Episcopal order itself to the necessity of repressing the numerous schisms in the church, warning consequently the bishops that their office, with its involved authority over presbyters, was to be regarded as the result of custom and tradition that than of divine appointment (Ad Tit., 1, 7)
Finally, we have this from Augustine (430) on the supremacy, being the secretary of the council of Carthage enacted the following impressive decree: anyone who appeals to those overseas (Rome) shall not be received by the communion of the bishops of Africa. These African bishops had so little respect for the bishops of Rome so as to excommunicate anyone who would ask help of him. These same bishops in the sixth council of Carthage wrote the Roman bishop, Celestine, warning him to refuse any appeal made by bishops, elders, deacons of Africa; to abstain from sending legates or commissioners to them; in a word, to refrain from introducing human pride in the church.
With all this said we are still faced with a major problem concerning Peter. There is absolutely no evidence he ever went to Rome for any other purpose but to be tried and executed. No mention of his ever being a bishop in the church there let alone a monarchical bishop. Paul said his habit was never to build upon another mans work and yet desired to go and actually did go to Rome where had Peter been laboring would have been another mans work. We also have the impressive list of church members Paul addresses in the close of His Roman letter with absolutely no mention of Peter which of course would have been the ultimate insult had Peter been the monarchical bishop of hat city. We also have Pauls own complaint that while in prison in Rome no one had visited him, this is equally unlikely had Peter even been in the city that he would not go and visit Paul.
This whole rise from pre-eminence, to primacy to supremacy is just another way of mans interference in the church of Christ.
Brother John
We have already touched on the fact that not all the ECFs and especially the more noble and scholarly never believed that the Rock in Matthew 16 was Peter but rather the confession God revealed to him.
According to the RCC position Christ established his church as a hierarchical society composed of subjects and leaders. Above this society of believers He ordained a college of apostles with the infallible authority of teaching, legislating, and judging all things concerning doctrine and morals.
Because in every organized body there is need of a head or president to whom the other members must obey or be subject, so Christ in His church appointed one to have full authority and primacy both upon the faithful and upon the bishops. Conclusion of such reasoning is that Peter was made by divine right the first pope and bishop of Rome, Prince of the apostles, Vicar of Christ, and human foundation of the church (a Catholic dictionary, p. 402)
Cardinal Gibbons, in Faith of our Fathers, page 95 says, Our Lord conferred on Saint Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His Holy Church, and that same spiritual supremacy has always resided with the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of Saint Peter. Consequently to be true and the laity, must be in communion with the see of Rome, followers of Christ all Christians, both among the clergy where Peter rules in the person of his successor
In explaining such a doctrine the theologians go on to say, that Peters primacy is not merely one of honor but also of jurisdiction which comprises the power of legislating, of judging and of securing obedience and submission by appropriate sanctions. (a catholic dictionary p 412) This last affirmation was made dogmatic pronouncement at the council of Florence (1439) against the bishops who believed that the authority of the general council was superior to that of the Roman chair.
We can make a list of all the ways Peter was pre-eminent that we can agree on. His opening of the kingdom on Pentecost, and later to the Samaritans and gentiles. However this pre-eminence has nothing to do with the so-called primacy advocated by Rome and especially the later day supremacy we now see in the papacy. Jesus himself said, you know that the princes of the gentiles lord it over them and that they are the greater exercise power over them. It shall not be so among you (Mt 20:25-26). The pre-eminence of Peter early on was to him personally and was never said to be passed on in any way. In fact as soon as the opening of the kingdom to the three classes was accomplished (Jews, Samaritans and gentiles) we see Peter taking a subordinate role, and in humble labors among the circumcision, disappeared from the pages of scripture and history.
In Jerusalem we see James taking the pre-eminence of that congregation as can be seen in the Jerusalem council. Peter was to go to the circumcision and we now see the Apostle Paul as pre-eminent among the gentile churches. The book of acts closes its account of the work of Peter at the Jerusalem council and continues exclusively with the works of Paul. In this scriptural picture of Peter there is no room for the dictatorial assumptions made by unscrupulous men in order to build up a precedent for later claims.
Our scriptures have no clue whatsoever of Peter being the supreme or absolute leader of the church. These conclusions came along later in the long and dreadful struggle between the eastern and western churches for the dominance of Christendom. Again Jesus Himself said, whosoever will be the greater among you will be your minister (diakonos = servant). And he that will be first among you will be your servant (Mt 20:26-27). Also it must be noted that had Jesus intended Peter or any of the apostles to be the supreme ruler of the church on earth He would certainly have said so. Even the other apostles did not recognize Peter as such which can be seen from Jesus last night at the supper some 1 years after Matthew 16 when they are still arguing over who will be the greatest in the kingdom Jesus is going to establish. Even in Peters own epistles he addresses his readers as fellow elders and not even an apostle or chef apostle or chief elder. It would seem that neither the apostles nor Peter himself saw this supremacy Rome now teaches. In fact after the supposed elevation of Peter with some mythical keys the apostles no less argued 3 times as to whom would be the greatest. Seems they did not see Peter as Rome does.
The apostles saw themselves as equal co-workers in and for the kingdom of God. Besides in Galatians 2:9 Paul mentions James and John as being reputed pillars in the church along with Peter whom he rebuked publicly and to his face because he was to be blamed for leading Barnabas and others into a sin already settled at the Jerusalem council. (2:14). Catholics will say it was a matter of discipline and consequently not involving the authority of Peter; but no pope today would tolerate an inferior accusing him publicly of 1) inconsistency, 2) practical calumny of Christ, 3) transgression of the law, 4) making void the gift of God (2:14-21). It can also be plainly seen that Paul exercised more jurisdiction upon the primitive churches than Peter or any other apostle. Even when the successor to Judas was to be selected it was not Peter to appoint him, but the multitude of believers present by agreement put forth the two candidates. (acts 1:15-26). Again to the Jerusalem council we see first James as the president of the council but the final decrees in favor of the gentile converts were issued in the name of the apostles, of the elders and of the brethren and not Peter (Acts 15).
When Paul and Barnabas returned from their first missionary journey, they did not go to see Peter, but reported directly to the church at Antioch (Acts 14:26). On Pauls return from his third missionary journey he did not report to Peter, but went unto James and all the elders were assembled (Acts 21:1
Even Irenaeus who, while he seems to exalt the Roman see for its apostolic principality (Both Peter and Paul), in another notable instance repudiates the claims of the Roman bishop to dictate to the bishops of other dioceses. This was on the occasion of a sentence of excommunication pronounced by Victor I (190-202) upon certain oriental bishops on account of their refusal to celebrate Easter at a particular time. We see also Tertullian implicitly intimating his disapproval in his treatise De Pudicitia (sec 1) of the assumption by the Roman bishop of the titles of pontifex maximus (supreme pontiff) and episcopus episcoporum (bishop of bishops). In another of his treatises (De Virg. Velandis, Migne, Patrol., pp767-76
Cyprian, bishop of Carthage (246-25
Finally, we have this from Augustine (430) on the supremacy, being the secretary of the council of Carthage enacted the following impressive decree: anyone who appeals to those overseas (Rome) shall not be received by the communion of the bishops of Africa. These African bishops had so little respect for the bishops of Rome so as to excommunicate anyone who would ask help of him. These same bishops in the sixth council of Carthage wrote the Roman bishop, Celestine, warning him to refuse any appeal made by bishops, elders, deacons of Africa; to abstain from sending legates or commissioners to them; in a word, to refrain from introducing human pride in the church.
With all this said we are still faced with a major problem concerning Peter. There is absolutely no evidence he ever went to Rome for any other purpose but to be tried and executed. No mention of his ever being a bishop in the church there let alone a monarchical bishop. Paul said his habit was never to build upon another mans work and yet desired to go and actually did go to Rome where had Peter been laboring would have been another mans work. We also have the impressive list of church members Paul addresses in the close of His Roman letter with absolutely no mention of Peter which of course would have been the ultimate insult had Peter been the monarchical bishop of hat city. We also have Pauls own complaint that while in prison in Rome no one had visited him, this is equally unlikely had Peter even been in the city that he would not go and visit Paul.
This whole rise from pre-eminence, to primacy to supremacy is just another way of mans interference in the church of Christ.
Brother John
All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:16)
