> b) The Roman Church emphasises John 1:42 in stating that Jesus gave the name "Rock" (Petros) to
> Simon at the very start. But in Matt. 16:18 the Greek is:
> "Thou art Petros, and upon this petra I will build my Church." Two different Greek words are
> employed with two different connotations:
> petros (masc.), detached stone.
> petra (fem.), living rock, solid rock.
> It is clear that a difference between Peter and the foundation is meant or the word "petros"
would
> simply have been repeated. "Petros", therefore, shows Peter's instability, (e.g., Matt.
16:22-23)
> while "petra" indicates the immovable rock-like character of Christ, or the confession of Peter,
> "thou art the Christ."
"Simon Cephas answered and said, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus answered
and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this
rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron
23 [A.D. 170]).
b. Tertullian
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the Church
would be built' [Matt. 16:18] with the power of 'loosing and binding in heaven and on earth' [Matt.
16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).
c. Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in
heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the
manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will
build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
d. The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most
sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end
was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D.
221])
e. The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a
firm rock, the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).
f. Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ
built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? 'Oh you of little faith,' he
says, 'why do you doubt?'" [Matt. 14:31] (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).
g. Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18-19] On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives
the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the
apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a
source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was
[i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one
Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine
that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was
built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4;
1st edition [A.D. 251]).
h. Cyprian of Carthage
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the
Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that
one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5
[A.D. 253]).
i. Cyprian of Carthage
"There [John 6:68-69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of
the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not
wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the
flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the
Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the
Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God,
believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the
Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by
the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (Letters 66[69]:8).
j. Firmilian
"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was
founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter
alone: 'Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you
loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian's Letters
74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).
k. Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the
succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . . . [Pope]
Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).
l. Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes
called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who
will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the
foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you
are the chief of my disciples" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
m. Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to
Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas
["Rock"] - of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of
the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
n. Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ' Could he
not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the
kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt.
16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
o. Ambrose of Milan
"It is to Peter that he says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church' [Matt.
16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life
eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
p. Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has
not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches,
but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are
Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against
it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first
see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor
blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
q. Jerome
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well
..... . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for
division." (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
r. Jerome
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus
I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been
built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah
will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
s. Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and
safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing
the whole Church, the Lord said, 'Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not conquer it.' Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement . . . In this order of
succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
t. Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: 'There is no doubt, and in
fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the
Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the
kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was
given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and
judges in his successors'" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
u. Sechnall of Ireland
"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [St. Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish]
church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell
prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).
v. Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the
apostles . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be
named what he himself was, when he said: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'
[Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter's solid rock,
strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of
hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).
w. Council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and
through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the
Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox
faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).
> 2. The power of the keys given to Peter (Matt 16:19) gave him no unique authority - no authority
> which the other apostles did not possess as well - Matt. 18:18 (cf. vs. 1); John 20:22,23.
This is not true. Other than Peter, the Apostles did _not_ receive the keys. This is obvious when
we compare the verses you quoted:
Mt:16:19:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven. (KJV)
Mt:18:18:
Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and
whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV)
Jn:20:22-23:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the
Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye
retain, they are retained. (KJV)
Jesus is the original holder of the keys, as the book of Revelation tells us:
Rv:3:7:
And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy,
he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth,
and no man openeth; (KJV)
This unique authority was passed to Peter the Apostle:
Mt:16:17-19:
And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and
blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee,
That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever
thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall
be loosed in heaven. (KJV)
Scholars agree that Jesus was "borrowing" from Isa 22:20-22 in the above passage. In that passage,
Shebna had been deposed and deprived of his office as chief steward (verses 15-19). Verse 20
onwards reads as
follows:
Is:22:20-22:
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of
Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit
thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the
house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open,
and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. (KJV)
Jesus is Son of David. Compare His New Testament Kingdom and the Old Testament (Davidic) Kingdom,
and the parallel verses in Matt 16:17-19 and Isa 22:20-22:
a. OT: The office of chief stewardship is conferred by God on Eliakim.
NT: The office of chief apostleship is conferred by Jesus Christ on Peter.
b. OT: Eliakim the son of Hilkiah.
NT: Simon Bar-jona, ie. son of Jona.
c. OT: Eliakim is clothed with the robe and girdle of authority: the government of the Davidic
kingdom is committed into his hand (the King did not rule alone, but conferred authority on his
Chief Minister, who governed with a Cabinet of Ministers).
NT: Peter is clothed with authority: the government of the Church is committed into his hand
(King Jesus conferred authority on the Chief Apostle, who governed with the other Apostles).
d. OT: Eliakim is "a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem".
NT: Peter is the Pope (Papa or Father) to the inhabitants of new Jerusalem, the Church.
Cf. Gal:4:26:
But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all. (KJV)
e. OT: Eliakim is given the key of the house of David.
NT: Peter is given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
f. OT: What Eliakim opens, none shall shut; what he shuts, none shall open.
NT: What Peter binds, will be bound in heaven; what he looses, will be loosed in heaven.
The parellelisms are striking! Jesus could not have been ignorant of the Old Testament backdrop
when He uttered those words in Matt 16:17-19. In fact, he probably said what He said in Matt 16
with the intention of leading His disciples to a deeper understanding of what He was giving to
Peter and the Church.
"Isaiah xxii 15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this [Matthew 16:19] saying. The keys are the symbol of
authority, and Roland de Vaux (Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh [New York: MrGraw-Hill, 1961],
129 ff.) rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the
house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the
same authority in Isaiah;... and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' (II
Kings xv 5)." W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, (Garden City, NY:
Doubleday, 1971), 196.
I will address the question of papal/apostolic succession later.
> b) "binding" - e.g., Anaias and Sapphira - Acts 5. Here Peter's condemnation uttered on earth
> was immediately enforced in heaven.
>
> c) "loosing" - e.g., palsied Aeneas loosed at Lydda. (Acts 9:32-35). Peter said, "Jesus Christ
> maketh thee whole" verse 34: Jesus in heaven "loosed" the paralytic. See also Acts 5:12-16.
I don't quite agree with the foregoing interpretation of "binding and loosing". It has more to do
with forbidding and allowing, rather than healing.
"To 'bind' and to 'loose' in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow', to
'declare forbidden' and 'to declare allowed.'" C. Allen Willoughby, The International Critical
Commentary: St. Matthew, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1977), 177.
"The words rendered 'prohibit' and 'permit' (v.18) are, literally, 'bind' and 'loose.' These terms
were used in the first century Judaism to mean 'prohibit' and 'permit,' as is clear from the
article, 'Binding and Loosing,' in the Jewish Encyclopedia, 3:125: "'Binding and Loosing (Hebrew
asar ve-hittar... Rabbinical term for "forbidding and permitting.", etc.'" David H. Stern, Jewish
New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 56-57.
"In rabbinical language to 'bind' and to 'loose' is to declare certain actions forbidden or
permitted; e.g., Terumoth 5:4, etc." George Arthur Buttrick and others, eds., The Interpreter's
Bible, (New York: Abingdon, 1951), 453.
> 3. Peter did not receive infallible authority from Jesus, even in matters ex cathedra, for Paul
> wrote: "But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
> blamed." (Gal. 2:11) Note how Christ also reproved Peter in Matt. 16: 22,23. Peter was the
only
> disciple to deny Christ.
Let me take the last statement first "Peter was the only disciple to deny Christ." Have you
forgotten Judas Iscariot, the man who betrayed Jesus?
Mk:14:10:
And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto
them. (KJV)
And did you forget that * all * the other Twelve ran away, except that John had a change of heart
later on and stayed with his Master at the foot of the Cross?
Mt:26:56:
Then all the disciples forsook him [Jesus], and fled. (KJV)
In any event, you are attacking a strawman. We [Catholics] have _never_ claimed * impeccability * (sinlessness)
for the Pope, but * infallibility * in teaching faith and morals - when proclaiming ex cathedra, as
you seem to be aware. Remember, it's * infalliblity * in _teaching_ faith and morals, _not_
* impeccability * in _adhering_ to faith and morals. You tell us nothing new when you remark that
Peter (or the Pope) sins. The Good Book says, and I'm sure you'll agree that:
1Jn:1:8:
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. (KJV)
Since we [Catholics] do not claim that Peter or the Pope is an exception to this rule, what has his sinfulness
(which we admit) got to do with anything? After all, sinfulness is not a condition of the Popes
alone, but a condition of the entire human race! Do you not sin? Do you not deny Christ in the
process?
Let's look at the facts and Scriptural precedents objectively:
1. Mt:10:40:
He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent
me. (KJV)
When Jesus sent out the Twelve with the above mandate, did you think that the Twelve were sinless?
Did you think that Judas, who was sent out with the Twelve, was sinless? Notice that Jesus was well
aware of the traitorous heart of Judas right from the start, but that did not stop Him from giving
Judas the apostolic mandate:
Jn:6:70-71:
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake
of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve.
(KJV)
2. Lk:10:16:
He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me; and he that
despiseth me despiseth him that sent me. (KJV)
Likewise, when the 72 were sent out, did you imagine that the 72 were sinless?
3. Mt:28:19-20:
Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have
commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)
Or when Jesus gave the Great Commission to the Apostles, did they have the "charism" of being
sinless? Yet, they were commanded to teach!
4. 1Tm:1:15:
This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into
the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. (KJV)
The great Apostle Paul called himself the chief of sinners, but did he not teach infallibly in the Scriptures?
Ti:1:3:
But hath in due times manifested his word through preaching, which is committed unto me
according to the commandment of God our Saviour; (KJV)
5. Neh:13:26:
Did not Solomon king of Israel sin by these things? yet among many nations was there
no king like him, who was beloved of his God, and God made him king over all Israel: nevertheless
even him did outlandish women cause to sin. (KJV)
This is an OT precedent to show that even those endowed with God's wisdom (Solomon) can and do
sin! Why are you so amazed that Peter does the same thing? I think the Scriptural evidence is
clear. Teaching Authority/Wisdom does not equal Sinlessness.
It follows, therefore, that Peter's sinfulness has got nothing to do with the fact that the
teaching authority and government of the Church has been entrusted to him by Jesus. You mention
Peter's triple denial, but neglect to mention his triple acts of love and repentance. This is one
of the more touching passages in the Gospels (and my favourite, on account of my numerous
transgressions and sins!):
Jn:21:15-19:
So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou
me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him,
Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith
unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto
him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him
the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou
wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old,
thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whit. (KJV)
Remember that the Good Shepherd will not trust His sheep to mere hirelings - but He puts His flock
under the care of Peter! The concept of shepherd and feeding the flock has connotations of
leadership, as the following Scriptural quotations show:
a. 2Sm:5:2:
Also in time past, when Saul was king over us, thou wast he that leddest out and
broughtest in Israel: and the Lord said to thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt
be a captain over Israel. (KJV)
b. Ez:34:23-24:
And I will set up one shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant
David; he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd. And I the Lord will be their God, and my
servant David a prince among them; I the Lord have spoken it. (KJV)
"All these references [including Num 27:17, Isa 40:9-11, Jer 31:10, Mic 5:2, Zec 10:2, Rev 2:27,
12:5, 17:7 & 19:15] make it clear that when Christ is called the 'Good Shepherd' He is really
invoked as Christ the King. The significance of the two metaphors is the same throughout Scripture.
The shepherd is the king and the king is the shepherd. So when Jesus bestowed the office of being
the shepherd of His whole flock on St. Peter He was really giving him kingly supremacy, a power not
only of honour but of jurisdiction." Francis J. Ripley, The Pope: Vicar of Jesus Christ, (Dublin:
Catholic Truth Society, 1965), 10-11.
It is for good reason, I think, that Jesus spoke frequently about His Kingdom. If it is modelled
on the Davidic kingdom (though it may be more correct to say that the Davidic kingdom, as a
"shadow" or prefigurement of the New Testament Kingdom, was actually modelled on the NT Kingdom!),
then we know that the monarch rules and governs with a chief steward or minister or regent. The
equivalent roles are filled up in this way: King David (or successor) - King Jesus; Chief Steward
(Eliakim) - Chief Apostle (Peter); Other Ministers - Other Apostles. This concept is even brought
out in some of Christ's parables:
a. Mt:24:45-51:
Who then is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler over his
household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh
shall find so doing. Verily I say unto you, That he shall make him ruler over all his goods. But
and if that evil servant shall say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; And shall begin to
smite his fellowservants, and to eat and drink with the drunken; The lord of that servant shall
come in a day when he looketh not for him, and in an hour that he is not aware of, And shall cut
him asunder, and appoint him his portion with the hypocrites: there shall be weeping and gnashing
of teeth. (KJV)
The moral of this story is that Popes are not immune from hell!
b. Mt:25:14-30:
For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called
his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods. And unto one he gave five talents, to another
two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his
journey, etc. (KJV)
c. Mk:13:34-37:
For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave
authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. Watch ye
therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the
cockcrowing, or in the morning: Lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. And what I say unto you
I say unto all, Watch. (KJV)
It is interesting to see that the servants left behind, when the master goes away, were made ruler
over the master's household, entrusted with his goods, given authority, etc. In the same way, the
Pope and his bishops have been given earthly jurisdiction by Our Lord until His Second Coming.
> 4. There is not a particle of historical evidence that Peter passed on any authority to anyone;
> and, what is more important, there is no New Testament evidence at all that Christ commanded
Peter
> to pass on any authority. Without such a clear command of Christ, the "successors" of Peter must
> be regarded as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from
> Christ.
Your statement is extremely bold! Not "a particle of historical evidence", you say! My comments
are as follows:
1. Before I deal with your objection proper, let me just say (or quote) this:
"That Peter received dynamic power in the keys is conceded by most biblical scholars. A question
that remains is whether Peter's successors received the same power and authority as Peter did. Some
say that Matthew 16:18-19 contains no language that would lead them to believe that successive
'rocks' were intended after Peter's death. This conclusion begs the question: Why would Jesus
bother himself to invest Peter with the tremendous role of founding the Church, giving him the keys
of regental authority, and then allowing the Church to flounder without a leader upon Peter's
departure? As Jesus truly appointed Peter to steer the Body of Christ after his Ascension,
logically there must be earthly leaders of the Church of Christ after Peter's departure. Scripture,
through Sacred Tradition and history, leads to the conclusion that papal and apostolic succession
is a living reality." ("Jesus, Peter & The Keys" by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess,
Queenship Publishing Company, 1996, 73)
Peter was martyred in AD 67 (if memory serves me correctly). Are you saying that the role of Peter
was only necessary for 34 years? That during those 34 years, there was something happening in the
Church which would require someone with the authority and prerogatives of Peter, but after AD 67,
there was no such need?
2. You say that "Without such a clear command of Christ, the 'successors' of Peter must be regarded
as having arrogated authority to themselves, rather than having received it from Christ." What you
actually mean to say is that: (1) It * appears * to you, (2) that there is no clear command * in
Scripture * for papal succession. But what is your authority for saying that Christ must give a
* clear * command in * Scripture * before something is legitimate? To say it another way, is there a
* clear * command by Christ in * Scripture * that we are only to abide by His * clear * commands in
* Scripture *??? I would venture to say: No! In fact, John the Evangelist, writing the last Gospel
around the end of the 1st century, after the 3 Synoptic Gospels were written, had this to say:
Jn:21:25:
And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be
written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be
written. Amen. (KJV)
John categorically denies the fact that the Gospels captured all of Jesus' deeds and teachings,
and yet you seem to assert the opposite. We know for a fact that Jesus spent 40 days after the
Resurrection instructing the Apostles, but we only have a couple of pages documenting one or two
dialogues. And when Jesus expounded the Scriptures for the benefit of the disciples on the road to
Emmaus, we are not privy to what Jesus said to them. Ditto for the time when Jesus spent a few days
teaching at the Samaritan village. And before His miracle of the multiplication of the loaves and
the fish, He had been teaching for one entire day, but all we have is an account of the miracle
itself!
The Acts of the Apostles gives us one example of a teaching of Jesus which never made it into
_any_ of the 4 Gospels:
Acts:20:35:
I have shewed you all things, how that so labouring ye ought to support the weak, and
to remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, It is more blessed to give than to receive.
(KJV)
You will * not * find this saying in the Gospels. Where, therefore, do you get the notion that the
Gospels have captured every single teaching of Jesus? Chapter and verse, please! Even if you were
to modify your position, and say that the rest of the New Testament (including the Gospels)
contains * all * (not some, or most) of Jesus' teachings, I would like you to show me a verse that
says that. What Bible verse says that all of Jesus' teachings are in the Bible?
The Evangelists' purpose in writing the Gospels was not to prove the papacy (which, as we shall
see later on, was hardly a controversial matter as far as the Early Christians were concerned), but
to bear witness to Jesus Christ.
Jn:20:31:
But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God;
and that believing ye might have life through his name. (KJV)
Nowhere is there a claim by the Evangelists or the New Testament authors that their writings were
a compendium of * all * Christian teachings and "proof-texts". The error is made in making this
assumption (or should I say, presumption?). Where is your authority for saying that Jesus must say
something * clearly * (whatever that means - what is crystal clear to me may be "clear as mud" to you
:-) in * Scripture * before you can accept it? By your argument, you would not be able to accept
Scripture itself because Jesus never said (clearly or otherwise) in Scripture (or anywhere) what
the canon of Scripture was - or that (say) the Epistle to the Hebrews is inspired but the Epistles
of Clement to the Corinthians is not!
3. It should be evident that I am not, in any way, conceding "sola scriptura", ie. the Bible and
the Bible alone. In fact, your definition is even more restrictive than "traditional" sola
scriptura because you only allow
statements made by Jesus Christ Himself! Do you not accept Old Testament quotations or those culled
from the Evangelists and the Apostles? Anyway, the evidence for papal succession does have its
basis in Jesus' pronouncements (as it turns out). Let's look at Matt 16:19 again.
Mt:16:19:
And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt
bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven. (KJV)
As I mentioned earlier, this harks back to Isa 22:20-25:
Is:22:20-25:
And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of
Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit
thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the
house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open,
and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a nail in a
sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house. And they shall hang upon
him all the glory of his father's house, the offspring and the issue, all vessels of small
quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the vessels of flagons. In that day, saith the Lord
of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall;
and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the Lord hath spoken it. (KJV)
Even though David is mentioned, the reigning king at the time was Hezekiah, who was the 14th king
of Judah. David's kingdom was established c. 11th century B.C. Chapters 1-39 are ascribed to the
prophet Isaiah, c. 8th century B.C. This means that David's kingship had passed in * dynastic *
succession for 300-400 years. As I noted above, the king would govern with the assistance of his
chief steward or minister, characterised as the holder of the keys. The keys also passed down in
succession, not * dynastically * but by * appointment * for 300-400 years.
In Isa 36:3, Eliakim (the holder of the keys) is designated literally as the person "over the
house".
Is:36:3:
Then came forth unto him Eliakim, Hilkiah's son, which was over the house, and Shebna the
scribe, and Joah, Asaph's son, the recorder. (KJV)
Eliakim was not the first palace administrator - there were others before him. He was a
* successor * by divine appointment.
a. 1Kgs:4:6:
And Ahishar was over the household: and Adoniram the son of Abda was over the
tribute. (KJV) (Ahishar under King Solomon)
b. 1Kgs:16:9:
And his servant Zimri, captain of half his chariots, conspired against him, as he
was in Tirzah, drinking himself drunk in the house of Arza steward of his house in Tirzah. (KJV)
(Arza under King Elah)
c. 1Kgs:18:3:
And Ahab called Obadiah, which was the governor of his house. (Now Obadiah feared
the Lord greatly: (KJV) (Obadiah under King Ahab)
We can see, therefore, that there is succession for the holder of the keys. Further, this is
stated as much in Isa 22:23-25:
Is:22:23-25:
And I will fasten him as a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne
to his father's house. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, the
offspring and the issue, all vessels of small quantity, from the vessels of cups, even to all the
vessels of flagons. In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the
sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off:
for the Lord hath spoken it. (KJV)
Eliakim will have "a glorious throne", and the "burden" of the office will be cut off only at some
time in the future. In the meantime, the palace masters assisted the kings of the House of Judah in
a line of succession parallel to the kings. It is interesting to note that King Hezekiah was
identified with the Messiah in Jewish literature. See the parellelism: King Hezekiah - King Jesus :
Eliakim the Chief Steward - Peter the Chief Apostle. These allusions probably did not escape the
minds of the Jewish converts when they read Matthew's Gospel. Let's examine the evidence for saying
that King Hezekiah was a prefigurement of the coming Messiah:
"See 2 Kings 20:8 (in which King Hezekiah is raised up from terminal illness to go up to the Temple
on the third day)." David H. Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New
Testament Publications, 1992), 486.
"And as he [Rabbi Yohannan ben Zakkai, one of the foremost first century Pharisaic leaders upon the
fall of Jerusalem,], breathed his last, he said, 'Clear the house of vessels which can receive
corpse-uncleanness, and prepare a throne for Hezekiah, king of Judah, who cometh.'" Jacob Neusner.
First-Century Judaism in Crisis, (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1975), 200.
"King Hezekiah is identified in Jewish literature with the Messiah." David H. Stern. Jewish New
Testament Commetary, (Clarksville, MD: Jewish New Testament Publications, 1992), 11
To come back to the succession issue, let's look at 2 passages in the Gospels:
a. Lk:22:29:
And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; (KJV)
b. Jn:20:21:
Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so
send I you. (KJV)
The first quotation was uttered by Jesus at the Last Supper, and the second on Easter Sunday.
Jesus confers a kingdom on the Apostles in the same way that the Father confers it on Jesus; Jesus
sends the Apostles on mission in the same way that the Father sends Jesus. In short, the Apostles
are to do what Jesus did - and one of the things that He did was to ensure the perpetuation of His
Church, which will endure through all times against the gates of hell, by appointing successors in
His place.
In Matt 16, He calls Peter the "Rock", builds His Church upon him, gives him the keys of the
kingdom, and confers "binding and loosing" powers. Two chapters later, in Matt 18, He confers
"binding and loosing" powers on the Apostles in general. It is interesting to note that the 2
passages in the Gospel according to Matthew are the * only * 2 times in all 4 Gospels that Jesus uses
the word "Church". The Church * must * have pastors with authority, to bind and loose! In both
passages, Jesus ensures the transmission of authority and succession, as if to tie these elements
in with the continuation of the Church.
Mt:18:15-18:
Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear
thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word
may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he
neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say
unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose
on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (KJV)
Since Jesus appointed successors or delegates (the Apostles themselves), the Apostles can do no
less, as they were sent on the * same * mission as Jesus. In fact, the appointment of Matthias to
take
the place of Judas could be seen as the first example of apostolic succession:
Acts:1:15-26:
And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number
of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs
have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas,
which was guide to them that took Jesus. For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this
ministry. Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he
burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out. And it was known unto all the dwellers
at Jerusalem; insomuch as that field is called in their proper tongue, Aceldama, that is to say,
The field of blood. For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and
let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. Wherefore of these men which have
companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, Beginning from the
baptism of John, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a
witness with us of his resurrection. And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was
surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of
all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, That he may take part of this ministry and
apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place And they
gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven
apostles. (KJV)
We can see from passages like Num 27:12-23 that, in the Old Testament, succession or the transfer
of power and authority was effected by way of laying of hands. The Apostles did the same thing.
a. Acts:6:5-6:
And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of
faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and
Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch: Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they
laid their hands on them. (KJV)
Note, however, that the deacons did not share in the fullness of apostolic authority and ordained
ministry.
b. Acts:13:2-3:
As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me
Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them. And when they had fasted and prayed,
and laid their hands on them, they sent them away. (KJV)
c. Acts:14:23:
And when they had ordained them elders [presbuterous] in every church, and had
prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they believed. (KJV)
d. 1Tm:4:14:
Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the
laying on of the hands of the presbytery. (KJV)
e. 1Tm:5:22:
Lay hands suddenly on no man, neither be partaker of other men's sins: keep thyself
pure. (KJV)
f. 2Tm:1:6:
Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in
thee by the putting on of my hands. (KJV)
Compare the "Timothy" passages above with the following "Corinthian" passages:
i. 2Cor:1:19-22:
For the Son of God, Jesus Christ, who was preached among you by us, even by me
and Silvanus and Timotheus, was not yea and nay, but in him was yea. For all the promises of God in
him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us. Now he which stablisheth us with you in
Christ, and hath anointed us, is God; Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit
in our hearts. (KJV)
ii. 2Cor:10:8:
For though I should boast somewhat more of our [Paul's and Timothy's] authority,
which the Lord hath given us for edification, and not for your destruction, I should not be
ashamed: (KJV)
iii. 2Cor:11:4 & 13:
For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or
if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not
accepted, ye might well bear with him... For such are false apostles, deceitful workers,
transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. (KJV)
From these passages, it is evident that the laying of hands on Timothy is no mere ritual, but is
an actual anointing by God, which confers God's authority as well as the preaching ministry. Laying
of hand ensures succession and the passing of authority and ministry!
g. Ti:1:5:
For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that
are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee: (KJV)
We are _not_ claiming that only those in the line of succession will be given the task of
preaching the Gospel and ministering to the Church, etc. What we do say is that "[t]hose who
attempt to stand outside the teaching and anointing of this line of succession will sooner or later
fall into error because they do not have the fullness of truth to guide them." ("Jesus, Peter & The
Keys" by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren and David Hess, Queenship Publishing Company, 1996, 185) As
a Catholic, to ensure orthodoxy is simple - I cleave to the official doctrines taught by the
Magisterium (Teaching Authority) - I do not try to "find my own way" by way of private
interpretation. Private interpretation is anarchic, to abide by the Magisterium is unitive.
Now, to answer your specific charge that "[t]here is not a particle of historical evidence that
Peter passed on any authority to anyone...", let me lay out for you the following Patristic quotes:
a. Irenaeus of Lyons
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul
were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D.
189]).
b. Irenaeus of Lyons
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the
churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or
vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by
pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to
all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church
which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by
the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that
is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have
maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
c. Irenaeus of Lyons
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they
handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter
to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was
acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the
apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still
remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension
having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the
Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus
succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of
Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in
the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3:3:3).
d. Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the
Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans,
where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
e. The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in
Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3)
f. Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ' [Matt. 16:18] On him [Peter]
he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although
he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he
established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone
[today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If
he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident
that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
g. Cyprian of Carthage
"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all
the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and
good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him--when the place of [Pope] Fabian,
which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been
occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to
become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the
unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
h. Cyprian of Carthage
"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry
letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at
Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).
i. Firmilian
"[Pope] Stephen [I] . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the
succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . . . Stephen
... . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian's Letters
74[75]):17 [A.D. 253]).
j. The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first
elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor,
Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus
ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After
his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful
martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276-284 [A.D. 267]).
k. Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the
Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the
episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third
bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil.
4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9-10 [A.D. 312]).
l. Pope Julius I
"[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the
ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as
emanating from all. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then
for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon
the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church
here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we
never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the
Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is
for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify
to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the
Arians 20-35).
m. Council of Sardica
"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes
that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor
the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop
of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again
by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
n. Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to
Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas
["Rock"]--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of
the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
o. Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement,
the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
p. Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the
holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other
churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says:
'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail
against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have
bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed
in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that
of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3
[A.D. 382]).
q. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against
the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
r. Jerome
"Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says 'With Clement and others of my
fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,' the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter,
if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that
Clement was second after the apostle" (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
s. Jerome
"Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is
bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult
the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8].
I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil
children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact" (Letters 15:1 [A.D.
396]).
t. Jerome
"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus
I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been
built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark on Noah
will perish when the flood prevails" (ibid., 15:2).
u. Jerome
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I
keep crying, 'He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!' . . . Therefore, I
implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should
communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).
v. Ambrose of Milan
"[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter,
which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be
forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: "I will
give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven"
[Matt. 16:19]" (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
w. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has
the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?"
(Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
x. Augustine
"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and
safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the
Lord said, "Upon this rock I will build my church . . . " [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by
Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D.
412]).
y. Council of Ephesus
"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: 'There is no doubt, and in fact it has
been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles,
pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from
our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the
power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his
successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and
holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place m this holy synod'" (Acts of the Council,
session 3 [A.D. 431]).
z. Pope Leo I
"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your
faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter"
(Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
aa. Pope Leo I
"[T]he Lord says, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, because flesh and blood have not revealed it
to you, but my Father, who is in heaven. And I say to you, that you are Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it . . .' [Matt. 16:18]. The
dispensation of truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the
rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church" (Sermons 3:2-3 [A.D. 450]).
bb. Pope Leo I
"Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his
confession, said, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Not undeservedly, therefore, was
he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged
both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]" (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
cc. Council of Chalcedon
"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out:
'This is the faith of the fathers! this is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the
orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . .
...... This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the
Fathers!'" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
dd. Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the
most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see,
provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and
faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D.
449]).
> 5. The Roman Church stresses the position of Peter but note the influence of Paul:
My response:
1. We do not deny the influence of the great St. Paul the Apostle! For good reason is Paul held as
a model and example of a great missionary in the Catholic Church.
2. However, the question of influence is neither here nor there. "Who is more influential?" is not
the issue. The issue is whether Peter was given the leadership of Christ's Church. One could argue
that Paul was more "influential" (Quaere: "Influential" in what? Does Scripture say what a man must
be influential in before he can be accepted as a leader in the Christian Church? Does it say that
he must be the *most* influential? How "influential" must he be? My opinion is that your criterion
is extremely nebulous, not to mention unscriptural), but even if he were, he could not wrest the
keys of the kingdom from Peter's hands, could he? The fact of the matter is that there is Petrine
primacy, but there is no evidence for a "Pauline primacy", is there?
> a) Paul went to Rome. (Acts 28:14-31); there is not certain Scriptural evidence of Peter
having
> gone there.
Sure there is!
1Pt:5:13:
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth
Marcus my son. (KJV)
I'm sure you're aware that "Babylon" is a code-name for pagan Rome. That's where Peter was writing
from at the time.
However, you may be wondering: "But why isn't there more scriptural evidence of Peter's presence
in Rome?" Simple. You'll see that the majority of the Epistles were written by Paul. Knowing that
Paul was a zealous ex-Pharisee and the former disciple of the great Gamaliel, is it any wonder that
he churned out more writings than Peter the fisherman? James and Jude only wrote one letter each,
and even John (who lived to the ripe old age of 100) only had 3 Epistles to his name (of course he
also penned the 4th Gospel and Revelation). 14 letters are attributed to Paul (if you count the
Letter to the Hebrews), and only 2 rather short letters to Peter, who acknowledged and admitted
that he wanted to keep 'em short:
1Pt:5:12:
By Silvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I suppose, I have written briefly,
exhorting, and testifying that this is the true grace of God wherein ye stand. (KJV)
Who wrote the Acts of the Apostles? Luke, and he was the disciple of Paul. Before Paul's
conversion in Acts 9, and even for some chapters after that, Peter was the protagonist. He was
mentioned no fewer than 50 times in Acts. After the Council of Jerusalem, however, Luke
concentrates on the missions of his master, Paul. Hence Peter virtually "drops out of the picture".
Therefore, the paucity of Scriptural evidence for Peter's presence in Rome is easily explained:
Paul and Luke combined happened to have written more of the New Testament than Peter and Mark
(Peter's disciple)! But take a look at the Patristic and historical evidence. The Fathers were
unanimous in saying that Peter was martyred in Rome under the Emperor Nero!
a. Ignatius of Antioch
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you [Romans]. They were apostles, and I am a convict"
(Letter to the Romans 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
b. Dionysius of Corinth
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made
by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught
us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to
Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
c. Irenaeus of Lyons
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul
were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D.
189]).
d. Irenaeus of Lyons
"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the
churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or
vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by
pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to
all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church
which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by
the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that
is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have
maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
e. Irenaeus of Lyons
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they
handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter
to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21]. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the
apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was
acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the
apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still
remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension
having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the
Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus
succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of
Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in
the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us" (ibid., 3:3:3).
f. Caius
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during
the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the
cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of
the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a
written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places
in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies
of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find
the trophies of those who founded this Church"' (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius,
Church History 2:25:5).
g. Clement of Alexandria
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the
Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that
Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what
had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 200], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6,
14:1).
h. Tertullian
"But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy
church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter
had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by
being beheaded]" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 [A.D. 200]).
i. Tertullian
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the
Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans,
where Clement was ordained by Peter" (ibid., 32:2).
j. Tertullian
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were
measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the
nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it
with their blood" (Against Marcion 4, 5:1 [A.D. 210]).
k. The Little Labyrinth
"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in
Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3)
l. The Poem Against the Marcionites
"In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first
elected, to sit down. After him, Cletus too accepted the flock of the fold. As his successor,
Anacletus was elected by lot. Clement follows him, well-known to apostolic men. After him Evaristus
ruled the flock without crime. Alexander, sixth in succession, commends the fold to Sixtus. After
his illustrious times were completed, he passed it on to Telesphorus. He was excellent, a faithful
martyr . . . " (Poem Against the Marcionites 276-284 [A.D. 267]).
m. Eusebius of Caesarea
"[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The Apostle Peter, after
he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that
city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years" (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
n. Peter of Alexandria
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and
treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
o. Lactantius
"When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain
miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and
steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing
down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the
servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5
[A.D. 318]).
p. Cyril of Jerusalem
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him . . .While the
error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and
they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer
against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all,
for Peter was there--he that carries about the keys of heaven. And it was nothing to marvel at, for
Paul was there--he that was caught up into the third heaven" (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D.
350]).
q. Optatus
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to
Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas
["Rock"]--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of
the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
r. Epiphanius of Salamis
"At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement,
the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
s. Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that although all
the Catholic Churches spread abroad through the world comprise one bridal chamber of Christ,
nevertheless, the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions
of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who
says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not
prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you
shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth
shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the
apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed
apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of
Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman
Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at
the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world.
"The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has
neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria,
consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to
Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious
martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed
Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome and where the name Christians was first
applied, as to a new people" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
t. Jerome
"[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter's twenty-second successor in the See of Rome" (Against
the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
u. Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of
Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of
Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of
Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until
the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom
being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting
that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1
[A.D. 396]).
v. Augustine
"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has
the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?"
(Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
w. Peter Chrysologus
"We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the
most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see,
provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and
faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome" (Letters 25:2 [A.D.
449]).
> b) Paul wrote to the ecclesia at Rome. (Rom. 1:1,7); Peter did not.
I have already explained why Paul was more likely to have written things than Peter. In any event,
the Great Commission which Jesus gave to the Apostles (and hence to Peter) says *nothing* about the
need to write. The Apostles were told to *preach*, and this Peter certainly did in Rome (as we can
see from the copious evidence from Patristic and historical sources). Can you give me a Biblical
principle which says that a person who does not write is not worthy of being a leader? Remember,
it's all about preaching as far as Jesus is concerned - and in fact, the Apostles preached (rather
than wrote) the word of God more often than not.
Mt:28:18-20: And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and
in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of
the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen. (KJV)
After all, only 7 out of 13 Apostles (including Matthias and Paul) wrote anything in the New
Testament. Were the rest derelict in their duty because they preached (in obedience to their
Master) instead of wrote (which was never commanded)?
> c) Paul had impor`tant jurisdiction and authority. For example:
I'm sorry, but surely you do not think that we deny Paul's importance and authority? But what has
this got to do with Peter's primacy? Does the existence of Al Gore mean that Bill Clinton's
presidency is impaired (of course it could be *impeached* for other reasons, but that's another
story!)?
We echo your statement that "Paul had important jurisdiction and authority." But no matter how
"influential" (your word) Paul was, the fact of the matter is that Peter alone was given the keys
to the Kingdom of heaven, and told to be the Rock on which the Church is built. Paul's missionary
success or influence cannot change that. Otherwise it would mean that every Pope in every age would
find himself inadvertently deposed of his office because of the exemplary work or service of some
Catholic luminary. And Catholic luminaries we have in plenty, eg. Justin Martyr, Augustine,
Athanasius, Thomas Aquinas, Francis of Assisi, Dominic, Anthony of Padua, Vincent Ferrer, Teresa of
Avila, Robert Bellarmine, Ignatius of Loyola, Therese of Lisieux, Mother Teresa, etc.
There is further evidence for the primacy of Peter in Scripture:
"A statistical analysis of the Gospels and the Acts shows that among the Twelve the name of Peter
occurs no less than 195 times, whereas the rest of the Apostles can muster only 130 nominations.
This proportion is further enhanced by the fact that the Apostle who comes next in prominence is
John, with only 29 references to his name." Michael W. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes,
(Baltimore: Helicon, 1960), 1.
"Wherever the Apostles are enumerated in the Gospels, St. Peter is invariably named first. St.
Matthew expressly calls him 'the first' (x. 2), the same Greek word (protos) being rendered 'chief'
in chap xx. 27, and other passages. Mr. Allie remarks: 'Now, that second and third do not follow,
shows that "first" is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen
authors this word "first" by itself indicates the more excellent in its kind: thus in the
Septuagint occur, "first friend of the king," "first of the singers," "the first priest," i.e., the
chief priest (Nehem. xii. 46; 2 Chron. xxvi. 20). So our Lord: "Whichever among you will be first"
(Matt. xx. 27); "Bring forth the first robe" (Luke xv. 22); and St. Paul: "Sinners, of whom I am
the first," i.e., chief (1 Tim. i. 15). Thus "the first of the island" (Acts xxviii. 7), means the
chief magistrate; and "first" generally, in Latin phraseology, the superior or prince.' St. Peter,
His Name and Office, p. 95, 2d. edit." Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri - The Titles and
Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burn & Oates, 1879), 47.
Notice that Peter was not the first Apostle (chronologically speaking) to be called - Andrew and
John were called first - and yet he was always named first in the Gospels and in Acts, and called
"the first":
Jn:1:38-41:
Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said
unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou? He saith unto
them, Come and see. They came and saw where he dwelt, and abode with him that day: for it was about
the tenth hour. One of the two which heard John speak, and followed him, was Andrew, Simon Peter's
brother. He first findeth his own brother Simon, and saith unto him, We have found the Messias,
which is, being interpreted, the Christ. (KJV)
OK, now coming to the Patristic quotations to show the primacy of Peter:
a. Clement of Alexandria
"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone
with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their
meaning. And what does he say? `Behold, we have left all and have followed you'" [Matt. 19:27; Mark
10:28] (Who Is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).
b. Tertullian
"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to
Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been
questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
c. Tertullian
"[T]he Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the
kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in
heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19] . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you
the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what
they shall have bound or they shall have loosed" (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).
d. The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most
sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end
was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first
of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason,
blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])
e. Origen
"[I]f we were to attend carefully to the gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things
which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus]
said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that
Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds
on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on
earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in
the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to
bind and loose in all the heavens" (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).
f. Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will
build my Church' . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed
the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a
single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason
for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy
is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all
[the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in
single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he
still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can
he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition
[A.D. 251]).
g. Cyril of Jerusalem
"The Lord is loving toward men, swift to pardon but slow to punish. Let no man despair of his own
salvation. Peter, the first and foremost of the apostles, denied the Lord three times before a
little servant girl, but he repented and wept bitterly" (Catechetical Lectures 2:19 [A.D. 350]).
h. Cyril of Jerusalem
"[Simon Magus] so deceived the city of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him . . .While the
error was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and
they set the error aright. . . . [T]hey launched the weapon of their like-mindedness in prayer
against the Magus, and struck him down to earth. It was marvelous enough, and yet no marvel at all,
for Peter was there--he that carries about the keys of heaven [Matt. 16:19]" (ibid., 6:14).
i. Cyril of Jerusalem
"In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is
now called Diospolis" [Acts 9:32-34] (ibid., 17:27).
j. Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes
called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who
will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the
foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you
are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that
life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the first-born in my
institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of
my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).
k. Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .' Could he
not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the
kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt.
16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).
l. Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has
been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the
primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock
I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you
the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of
Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like
it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
m. Jerome
"'But,' you [Jovinian] will say, 'it was on Peter that the Church was founded' [Matt. 16:18]. Well
..... . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for
division"
(Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).
n. Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of
Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of
Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of
Claudius to over-throw Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until
the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom
being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting
that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1
[A.D. 396]).
o. Pope Innocent I
"In seeking the things of God . . . you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us
[the pope], and have shown that you know that is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us
placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself [Peter] from whom the
episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged" (Letters 29:1 [A.D. 408]).
p. Augustine
"Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church.
Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear 'I will give
to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
q. Augustine
"Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear
in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a
figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is 'I will give unto you
the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents
those Jews who were Christ's enemies" (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415])
r. Augustine
"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John
56:1 [A.D. 416]).
s. Council of Ephesus
"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: 'We offer our thanks to the holy and
venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you
joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not
ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the Apostles, is blessed Peter the Apostle'"
(Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).
t. Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: 'There is no doubt, and in fact
it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the
Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the
kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was
given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and
judges in his successors'" (ibid., session 3).
u. Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the
apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone
who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine
mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named
what he himself was, when he said: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church'
[Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter's solid rock,
strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of
hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).
v. Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion .
..... . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in
such
a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the
apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the
head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter
would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2-3).
w. Pope Leo I
"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most
blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All
were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So
today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter,
and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).
x. Pope Leo I
"[T]he blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not
abandoned the helm of the Church, which he understood. For he was ordained before the rest in such
a way that from his being called the rock, from his being pronounced the foundation, from his being
constituted the doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the umpire to bind and
loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we
might know the nature of his association with Christ" (Sermons 3:2-3 [A.D. 450]).
> 6. If the Roman Chuch is the custodian and preserver of absolute truth, why did it take nearly
1900
> years, until this was officially declared in 1870?
The fact that papal infallibility was declared as a dogma only in 1870 (Vatican I) does not mean
that the Church did not believe it previously. All it means is that the Extraordinary Magisterium
was being exercised to clarify, consolidate and remove all doubts about this belief. A study of the
history of Ecumenical Councils in the Church should make this point evident. They are usually
convened in response to heresies or certain needs in the Church, to affirm in an * extraordinary *
way what has been taught previously. Do you reject the canon of the New Testament simply because it
was only made definitive in the 4th century? How come 360 years is "short" enough to be accepted,
but 1840 years is too "long"? On what basis and authority is this principle put forth?
> 7. Matt 18:1; Mark 9:34; Luke 22:24 all record a dispute among the disciples as to who should be
> the greatest. This dispute is important for two reasons:
> a) It is apparent that if Peter had been given the kind of authority asserted by Roman
Catholics
> then it is very unlikely that a dispute as to who was to be accounted the greatest would have
> arisen.
Your argument is fallacious. What the incidents actually show is that, prior to the Resurrection,
the Apostles did not understand many things, one of which being the primacy of Peter. Heck, you
will recall that the Apostles did not even understand what the Kingdom was going to be (they kept
thinking it was a political kingdom), and they did not comprehend (let alone believe) that Jesus
was going to die and be raised up on the 3rd day. What's the big deal about another teaching they
did not understand?
> b) Jesus' reply, in Luke 22:25-30, does not mention the primacy of Peter, and further suggests
> that there would be no distinction among the apostles, when they would "sit on thrones judging
the
> twelve tribes of Israel". (vs. 30).
If I point to the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers and say: "These guys will govern the
Republic of Singapore", do I imply that there is no Prime Minister? Of course not! Why should the
fact that Luke 22:25-30 is silent on the primacy of Peter mean that there is no primacy? Why do you
discard all the * other * verses and evidence that talk about the primacy in deference and preference
to one single citation, Luke 22:25-30? Once again, why is there no attempt to harmonise and
reconcile verses?
> 8. A similar argument can be advanced, on the request of the mother of James and John, for the
two
> highest postitions in the kingdom. (Matt. 20:20-23). Would they be ignorant of Peter's
> appointment to the supreme place if this was in fact the case?
In response to your "similar argument", I reiterate my "similar argument" above.
> 10. Peter never indicates any personal superiority in his epistles. He refers to himself as "an
> apostle", (1 Pet. 5:1) "an elder", ("a fellow elder) (1 Pet 5:1 R.S.V.), and instructs the elders
> not to be "lords over God's heritage," but to be "examples to the flock." (1 Pet. 5:3).
If the President of the United States begins his speech with the words: "My fellow Americans...",
is he denying his presidency and leadership of the country? If a Bishop addresses a gathering of
priests with the words: "My brother priests...", is he repudiating his episcopacy? If a priest or a
pastor greets his congregation: "My brothers and sisters in Christ...", is he foregoing his
ministry of leading the flock? It seems to me that you are reading too much into the above verses
you quoted. They are, at most, your own interpolation. Certainly, Peter was an apostle and an
elder, but not all apostles or elders had the role of Peter.
I'm not too sure what you intend to say when you quoted 1 Pet 5:3. Are you denying * any * hierarchy
or authority whatsoever, and asserting a kind of communist style of governance for the Church? If
so, I think verse 2 shows that this is untrue:
1Pt:5:2:
Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint,
but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; (KJV)
"Feed the flock" is (as I pointed out earlier) an expression synonymous with leadership. Also
"taking the oversight thereof" refers to guardianship. Bishops are (in effect) "overseers".
1. Acts:20:28:
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy
Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own
blood. (KJV)
2. Heb:13:17:
Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your
souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that
is unprofitable for you. (KJV)
> 11. How can the Church claim that decisions made by its councils are authoritative, when they are
> clearly wrong e.g. the repudiation of the findings of Galileo and his imprisonment by the Church
> which held to the Ptolemaic theory.
Most of what I'm going to say here has been unabashedly "swiped" from George Sim Johnston's
excellent and well-balanced article on the Galileo controversy (Scepter Press). You'll see that,
where Church authorities overstepped their boundaries, we acknowledge the sin with a "mea culpa,
mea culpa, mea maxima culpa". But the Galileo affair has precious little to do with papal
infallbility, except that people like to use it as a bludgeon against the papacy and the Catholic
Church.
1. In 1979, Pope John Paul II expressed the wish that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences conduct an
in-depth study of the celebrated Galileo case. A commission of scholars was convened, and they
presented their report to the Pope on October 31, 1992.
2. Contrary to reports in The New York Times, etc., the Holy See was not on this occasion finally
throwing in the towel and admitting that the earth revolves around the sun. That particular debate,
so far as the Church was concerned, had been closed since at least 1741 when Pope Benedict XIV bid
the Holy Office grant an imprimatur (Latin for "let it be printed") to the first edition of the
Complete Works of Galileo.
3. What John Paul II wanted was a better understanding of the whole affair by both scientists and
theologians. The Holy Father was trying to heal the tragic split between faith and science which
occurred in the 17th century and from which Western culture has not recovered. Following the
guidelines of the Second Vatican Council, he wished to make clear that science has a legitimate
freedom in its own sphere and that this freedom was unduly violated by Church authorities in the
case of Galileo.
4. There was, admittedly, an abuse of the Church's * disciplinary * powers in dealing with Galileo,
but this had nothing to do with papal or ecumenical infallibility. The concept of heliocentrism is
a * scientific * issue, not one of *f aith and morals * - and it is only in the latter sphere that the
Church claims to be infallible, and only then under certain conditions.
5. Pope John Paul II pointed out that "the Galileo case has been a sort of 'myth,' in which the
image fabricated out of the events was quite far removed from the reality. In this perspective, the
Galileo case was the symbol of the Church's supposed rejection of scientific progress." Galileo's
run-in with the Church, according to the Pope, involved a "tragic mutual incomprehension" in which
both sides were at fault. It was a conflict that ought never to have occurred, because faith and
science, properly understood, can never be at odds.
6. The Victorian biologist Thomas Henry Huxley, who had no brief for Catholicism, once examined the
case and concluded that "the Church had the best of it." The most striking point about the whole
affair is that until Galileo forced the issue into the realm of theology, the Church had been a
willing ombudsman for the new astronomy. It had encouraged the work of Copernicus and sheltered
Kepler against the persecutions of Calvinists. Problems only arose when the debate went beyond the
mere question of celestial mechanics. But here we need some historical background.
7. The modern age of science began in 1543 when Nicholas Copernicus, a Polish Canon, published his
epochal "On the Revolution of the Celestial Orbs". The popular view is that Copernicus "discovered"
that the earth revolves around the sun. Actually, the notion is at least as old as the ancient
Greeks. But the geocentric theory, endorsed by Aristotle and given mathematical plausibility by
Ptolemy, was the prevailing model until Copernicus.
8. Geocentricity was given additional credibility by certain passages of Scripture, which seemed to
affirm the mobility of sun and the fixity of the earth. Most early Church Fathers simply took it
for granted; but they weren't really interested in scientific explanations of the cosmos. As St.
Ambrose wrote, "To discuss the nature and position of the earth
does not help us in our hope of the life to come."
9. That Copernicus believed the helioocentric theory to be a true description of reality went
largely unnoticed. This was partly because he still made reassuring use of Ptolemy's cycles and
epicycles; he also borrowed from Aristotle the notion that the planets must move in circles because
that is the only perfect form of motion. There was, moreover, the famous preface by Osiander, a
Protestant who oversaw the printing of the first edition. Osiander knew that Luther and Melanchthon
violently
opposed any suggestion that the earth revolves around the sun. So he wrote an unsigned preface,
which everyone took to be Copernicus', presenting the theory as a mere mathematical devise for
charting the movements of the planets in a simpler manner than the burdensome Ptolemaic system, one
that was not meant to be a definitive description of the heavens.
10. Copernicus had delayed the publication of his book for years because he feared, not the censure
of the Church, but the mockery of academics. It was the hide-bound Aristotelians in the schools who
offered the fiercest resistance to the new science. Aristotle was the Master of Those Who Know;
perusal of his texts was regarded as almost superior to the study of nature itself.
11. Ptolemy's methodizing of Aristotle to explain the motion of the stars was part of this academic
baggage. And it made perfect empirical sense; by using it, ships were able to navigate the seas and
astronomers were able to predict eclipses. So why give up this time-honored system for a new,
unproved cosmology which not only contradicted common sense (as no less an authority than Francis
Bacon averred), but also the apparent meaning of Scripture?
12. Such was the scientific mind of Europe when Galileo burst on the scene in 1610 with his
startling telescopic discoveries. Up to that point, the forty-six year-old Galileo had been
interested mainly in physics, not astronomy. His most famous accomplishment had been the
formulation of the laws of failing bodies. (Contrary to legend, he never dropped anything from the
Tower of Pisa - if I recall my physics correctly, he rolled heavy balls of different weights down
inclined planes and timed their descent) Galileo was a gifted tinkerer, and when he heard about the
invention of the telescope in Holland, he immediately built one for himself, characteristically
taking full credit for the invention.
13. Looking through his new spyglass, he made some discoveries which shook the foundations of the
Aristotelian cosmos. First, he saw that the moon was not a perfect sphere, but pocked with
mountains and valleys like the earth. Second, and more astonishing, Jupiter had at least four
satellites. No longer could it be said that heavenly bodies revolve exclusively around the earth.
Finally, he observed the phases of Venus, the only explanation of which is that Venus moves around
the sun and not the earth.
14. The response to these discoveries ranged from enthusiastic to downright hostile. The leading
Jesuit astronomer of the day, Christopher Clavius, was skeptical; but once the Roman college
acquired an improved telescope, he saw for himself that Galileo was right about Jupiter's moons,
and the Jesuits subsequently confirmed the phases of Venus. These men were not ready to jump on the
Copernican bandwagon, however; they adopted as a half-way measure the system of Tycho Brahe, which
had all the planets except the earth orbiting the sun. This accounted quite satisfactorily for
Galileo's discoveries.
15. Still, Galileo was the man of the hour; in 1611 he made a triumphant visit to Rome, where he
was feted by cardinals and granted a private audience by Pope Paul V, who assured him of his
support and good will.
16. Galileo returned to Florence, where he might have been expected to continue his scientific
research. But for about two decades after 1611, pure science ceased to be his main concern.
Instead, he became obsessed with converting public opinion to the Copernican system. All of Europe,
starting with the Church, had to buy into Copernicus.
17. This crusade would never have ended in the offices of the Inquisition had Galileo possessed a
modicum of discretion, not to mention charity. But he was not a tactful person; he loved to score
off people and make them look ridiculous. And he would make no allowance for human nature, which
does not easily shuck off an old cosmology to embrace a new one which seems to contradict both
sense and tradition.
18. The irony is that when Galileo started his campaign, he enjoyed almost universal good will
among the Catholic hierarchy. But he managed to alienate almost everybody with his caustic manner
and aggressive tactics. His position gave the Church authorities no room to maneuver: they either
had to accept Copernicanism as a fact (even though it had not been proved) and reinterpret
Scripture accordingly; or they had to condemn it. He refused the reasonable third position which
the Church offered him: that Copernicanism might be considered a hypothesis, one even superior to
the Ptolemiaic system, until further proof could
be adduced.
19. Galileo faced 2 problems as far as proof of his pet theory was concerned: (1) He could not even
answer the strongest argument against it, which was advanced by Aristotle. If the earth did orbit
the sun, the philosopher wrote, then stellar parallaxes would be observable in the sky. In other
words, there would be a shift in the position of a star observed from the earth on one side of the
sun, and then six months later from the other side. Galileo was not able with the best of his
telescopes to discern the slightest stellar parallax. This was a valid scientific objection, and it
was not answered until 1838, when Friedrich Bessel succeeded in determining the parallax of star 61
Cygni; and (2) Galileo insisted, despite the discoveries of Kepler, that the planets orbit the sun
in perfect circles. The Jesuit astronomers could plainly see that this was untenable.
20. Galileo nonetheless launched his campaign with a series of pamphlets and letters which were
circulated all over Europe. Along the way, he picked fights with a number of Churchmen on
peripheral issues which helped to stack the deck against him. And, despite the warnings of his
friends in Rome, he insisted on moving the debate onto theological grounds.
21. There is no question that if the debate over heliocentricism had remained purely scientific, it
would have been shrugged off by the Church authorities. But in 1614, Galileo felt that he had to
answer the objection that the new science contradicted certain passages of Scripture. There was,
for example, Joshua's command that the sun stand still. Why would Joshua do that if, as Galileo
asserted, the sun didn't move at all? Then there were Psalms 92 ("He has made the world firm, not
to be moved.") and 103 ("You fixed the earth upon its foundation, not to be moved forever."), not
to mention the famous verse in Ecclesiastes.
22. Galileo addressed this problem in his famous Letter to Castelli. In its approach to biblical
exegesis, the letter ironically anticipates Leo XIII's encyclical, Providentissimus Deus (1893),
which pointed out that Scripture often makes use of figurative language and is not meant to teach
science. Galileo accepted the inerrancy of Scripture; but he was also mindful of Cardinal
Baronius's quip that the Bible "is intended to teach us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens
go." And he pointed out correctly that both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas taught that the
sacred writers in no way meant to teach a system of astronomy. St. Augustine wrote that: "One does
not read in the Gospel that the Lord said: I will send you the Paraclete who will teach you about
the course of the sun and moon. For He willed to make them Christians, not mathematicians."
23. Unfortunately, there are still today Biblical fundamentalists, both Protestant and Catholic,
who do not understand this simple point: the Bible is not a scientific treatise. When Christ said
that the mustard seed was the smallest of seeds (and it is about the size of a speck of dust), he
was not laying down a principle of botany. In fact, botanists tell us that there are smaller seeds.
He was simply talking to the men of his time in their own language, and with reference to their own
experience. Hence the warning of Pius XII in Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943) that the true sense of
a Biblical passage is not always obvious, as the sacred writers made full use of the idioms of
their time and place.
24. But in 1616, the year of Galileo's first "trial," the Church having just been through the
bruising battles of the Reformation (one major bone of contention being the private interpretation
of Scripture!), Catholic theologians were in no mood to entertain hermeneutical injunctions from a
layman like Galileo. His friend Archbishop Piero Dini warned him that he could write freely so long
as he "kept out of the sacristy."
25. In December, 1614, a meddlesome and ambitious Dominican priest, Thomas Caccini, preached a
fiery sermon in Florence denouncing Copernicanism and science in general as contrary to Christian
faith. The attack was clearly aimed at Galileo, and a written apology from a Preacher-General of
the Dominicans did not take the edge off Galileo's displeasure at having been the target of a
Sunday homily.
26. About a month later, another Domincan, Father Niccolo Lorini, read a copy of Galileo's Letter
to Castelli and was disturbed to find that Galileo had taken it upon himself to interpret Scripture
according to his private lights. He sent a copy to the Inquisition in Rome--one, moreover, which
had been tampered with to make Galileo's words more alarming than they actually
were. The Consultor of the Holy Office (or Inquisition) nevertheless found no serious objections to
the letter and the case was dismissed. A month later, Caccini appeared in Rome uninvited, begging
the Holy Office to testify against Galileo. The judges of the Inquisition did not buy his story,
and the case against Galileo was again dropped.
27. But the Letter to 'Castelli. and Caccini's testimony were on the files of the Inquisition, and
Rome was buzzing with rumours that the Church was going to condemn both Galileo and Copernicanism.
Galileo's friends in the hierarchy, including Cardinal Barberini, the future Urban VIII, warned him
not to force the issue. But Galileo only intensified his campaign to get the Church to accept
Copernicanism as an irrefutable truth.
28. At this point, one of the great saints of the day, Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, entered the
drama. Bellarmine was one of the most important theologians of the Catholic Reformation. He was an
expansive, gentle man who possessed the sort of meekness and good humor that is the product of a
lifetime of ascetical struggle. As Consultor of the Holy Office and Master of Controversial
Questions, he was unwillingly drawn into the Copernical controversy. In April 1615, he wrote a
letter which amounted to an unofficial statement of the Church's position. He pointed out that: (1)
it was perfectly acceptable to maintain Copernicanism as a working hypothesis; and (2) if there
were "real proof" that the earth circles around the sun, "then we should have to proceed with great
circumspection in explaining passages of Scripture which appear to teach the contrary......"
29. Bellarmine, in effect, challenged Galileo to prove his theory or stop pestering the Church.
Galileo's response was to produce his theory of the tides, which purported to show that the tides
are caused by the rotation of the earth. Even some of Galileo's supporters could see that this was
patent nonsense.
30. Determined to have a showdown, however, Galileo came to Rome to confront Pope Paul V. The Pope,
exasperated by all this fuss about the planets, referred the matter to the Holy Office. The
Qualifiers (i.e., theological experts) of the Holy Office soon issued an opinion that the
Copernican doctrine is "foolish and absurd, philosophically and formally heretical inasmuch as
it expressly contradicts the doctrine of Holy Scripture in many passages...
31. This verdict was fortunately overruled under pressure of more cautious Cardinals and was not
published until 1633, when Galileo forced a second showdown. A milder decree, which did not include
the word "heresy", was issued and Galileo was summoned before the Holy Office. For that day,
February 26, 1616, a report was put into the files of the Holy Office which states that Galileo was
told to relinquish Copernicanism and commanded "to abstain altogether from teaching or defending
this opinion and doctrine, and even from discussing it."
32. There is a still unresolved controversy over whether this document is genuine, or was forged
and slipped into the files by some unscrupulous curial official. At Galileo's request, Bellarmine
gave him a certificate which simply forbade him to "hold or defend" the theory. When, sixteen years
later, Galileo wrote his famous Dialogue on the Two Great World Systems, he technically did not
violate Bellarmine's injunction. But he did violate the command recorded in the controversial
minute, of which he was completely unaware and which was used against him at the second trial in
1633.
33. At this point, I wish to highlight the following facts:
a. The question of geocentricity/heliocentricity belongs to the realm of science, not faith and
morals. Following Ambrose, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and (closer to our time) Leo XIII and Pius
XII, we must understand that the Scriptures are not primarily interested in teaching science as
conveying God's message for salvation. This is not to say that the Bible contains mistakes or
errors - it most certainly IS * inerrant *. However, the Bible uses expressions and idioms proper to
the author and his time, without intending primarily to convey a scientific truth. For example,
even today, we say that "the sun rises... the sun sets", even though (technically speaking) it is
the earth revolving around the sun and not the other way round. We say things like: "I am standing
still", but (scientifically speaking) nobody can be "still" as we are hurtling through space on
planet Earth at tremendous speeds. We talk of "live and instantaneous" transmissions of radio/TV
programmes, but we know from science that, even travelling at the speed of light, these signals
take some time to be transmitted and received by our radios/TVs, and that some more time is
required before the sounds/images are registered and the information makes its way (via our eyes
and ears) to our brains. In short, we usually speak without the exactitude and precision of
scientists (even then, I'm willing to bet that even scientists say things like: "The sun
rises/sets... I am standing still... this is a 'live' transmission... etc.").
b. Most Christians at the time accepted geocentricity as a matter of course, but such belief does
not form part of the Deposit of Faith, not having been defined by any Pope ex cathedra or any
Ecumenical Council, or even taught by the Ordinary Magisterium.
34. Let's come back to Galileo's case. This second trial was again the result of Galileo's tactless
importunity. When, in the 1623, Galileo's friend and supporter Cardinal Barberini was elected Pope
Urban VIII, Galileo naturally thought that he could get the decree of 1616 lifted.
35. Urban gave several private audiences to Galileo, during which they discussed the Copernican
theory. At one audience, he told Galileo that the Church did not define Copernicanism as heretical
and would never do so. But at the same time, he opined that all this quibbling about the planets
did not touch on reality: only God could know how the solar system is really disposed.
36. As a scientist, Galileo was perfectly correct in rejecting this half baked philosophizing. But
he grossly miscalculated Urban's tolerance by writing the great Dialogue. There he not only made it
clear that he considered the defenders of Aristotle and Ptolemy to be intellectual clowns, but he
made Simplicio, one of the chief interlocuters of the dialogue, into a silly mouthpiece for Urban's
views on cosmology. Galileo was mocking the very person he needed as his protector, a pope whose
hubris did not take such barbs with equanimity. At the same time, Galileo alienated the Jesuit
order with his violent attacks on one of its astronomers, Horatio Grassi, over the nature of comets
(and, in fact, the Jesuit was right--comets are not exhalations of the atmosphere, as Galileo
supposed.)
37. The result of these ill-advised tactics was the famous second trial, which is still celebrated
in song and myth as the final parting of ways between faith and science. Galileo, an old sick man,
was summoned before the Inquisition in Rome. In vain he argued that he was never shown the document
which, unbeknownst to him and Cardinal Bellarmine, had been slipped into the file in 1616
forbidding him to even to discuss heliocentricism.
38. Contrary to popular accounts, Galileo did not abjure the theory under threat of torture. Both
he and the Inquisitors knew that the threat of torture was pure formality. Galileo was, in fact,
treated with great consideration. Against all precedent, he was housed with a personal valet in a
luxurious apartment overlooking the Vatican gardens.
39. As for the trial itself, given the evidence and the apparent injunction of 1616, it was by the
standards of 17th century Europe extremely fair. The historian Giorgio de Santillana, who is not
disposed toward the Church's side, writes that "we must, if anything, admire the cautiousness and
legal scruples of the Roman authorities" in a period when thousands of "witches" and other religous
deviants were subjected to juridical murder in [the predominantely Protestant areas of] northern Europe and New England.
40. Galileo was finally condemned by the Holy Office as "vehemently suspected of heresy." The
choice of words was debatable, as Copernicanism had never been declared heretical by either the
ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium of the Church. In any event, Galileo was sentenced to abjure
the theory and to keep silent on the subject for the rest of his life, which he was permitted to
spend in a pleasant country house near Florence. As the philosopher Alfred North Whitehead wrote,
"In a
generation which saw the Thirty Years' War and remembered Alva in the Netherlands, the worst that
happened to men of science was that Galileo suffered an honorable detention and a mild reproof,
before dying peacefully in his bed." And it is notable that three of the ten Cardinals who sat on
the Commission did not sign the judgment, although we do not know their precise motives for
abstaining.
41. Galileo's condemnation was certainly unjust, but in no way impugns the infallibility of
Catholic dogma. Heliocentricism was never declared a heresy by either ex cathedra pronouncement or
an ecumenical council. And as the Pontifical Commission points out, the sentence of 1633 was not
irreformable. Galileo's works were eventually removed from the Index and in 1822, at the behest of
Pius VII, the Holy Office granted an imprimatur to the work of Canon Settele, in which
Copernicanism was presented as a physical fact and no longer as an hypothesis.
42. Remember that decisions of the Holy Office are _not_ in any way equivalent to the
pronouncements of the Pope ex cathedra or an Ecumenical Council (a gathering of Bishops in union
with the Pope, like the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15). A * disciplinary * sentence was meted out -
and, as admitted above, the sentence may have been too harsh or hasty, but it is (at the end of the
day) not touching on the question of Church or papal infalliblity at all! If the complaint is one
of * fairness *, it must be recalled that Galileo himself was not wholly innocent in his conduct, and
that the 2nd trial was not unduly or overwhelmingly unjust towards him. Anyway, the unfairness or
injustice of a * disciplinary * decision has got nothing to do with * infallibility *.
OK, I think I'd better stop for now. This has taken longer than I thought it would. I look forward
to your reply. Thanx for reading, and God Bless!
If you found this article interesting, kindly take a moment to thank the author,
Kelvin Chia, who was thoughtful enough to share his time and research with our visitors. Thanks, Kelv! Or, if you'd like to send your
comments to us, we'll be sure to pass them on.
By the way, you can read our interview with Kelvin in our
Conversion Stories, Interviews & More Link Page If you like personal witnessing and testimonies like these, you'll be touched by many of these true stories! We think you'll find this author to be a fun loving, as well as a scholarly and spiritual, man. And lady's, he is single!
Please line up for tickets for an introduction over here... ;-)
Check out Kelvin's web-site,
Enter The VIN-Yard
