Catholic Q&A

[Eleventh Doctor]

Also it was Peter who was in error and originally wanted the Gentiles to be circumcised. This is a perfect example of why all the bishops are needed.

[Pound Foolish]

How do you know it was held from the beginning if it wasn't written about and the councils behaved like it didn't exist?

I mean to be perfectly frank to me the Catholic version of Christ to St. Peter goes like this. "You are Peter and on you I will build my rock, but you know not at Antioch which was your first and main bishopric but Rome for some reason. Also people aren't going to write about this explicitly or even really behave like they realize this, in fact during the first 700 plus years of the church when all the other major doctrines of the church are defined this won't really be discussed much but then like in 1100 after half the church breaks away because they think the bishop of Rome is abusing his power those churches accused of abuse will then explicitly state that the bishop of Rome is the universal bishop."

Uh huh.

"[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped 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]).



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]).

"[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" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).



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]).



Origen

"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]).



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]).



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]).

"[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).

"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).



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 firstborn 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]).



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]).



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]).



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]).

"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 overthrow 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]).



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]).



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]).

"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]).

"Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter?" (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).



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]).

"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).



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).

"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).

"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).

As to the idea of Peter not being supremal at that council, here you go. Blitz, you probably have not read this but I will warn you it is somewhat long. Good Dr., you read this but never directly addressed it. You may recall you did, but you simply said I was "twisting" scripture and came up with further arguments for you position. You never directly addressed how the claims misrepresented the Bible. You never said anything like, "You say James said this, but he actually said..." Or, "You say Peter's word was accepted as authoritative, but really..." When asked repeatedly to do so, you flately refused. Anyhow, here you are again.

Petrine Primacy in Acts

The Catholic claim that Peter was the first pope is not based on sola scriptura, selective use of Scripture, or just a single passage of Scripture. (See “Beyond Matthew 16:18,” page 30.)

As for Acts 15, a number of factors point to Peter actually being both the leader at the council and the leader of the early Church. First, there is the manner in which his speech begins and ends. By standing up to speak after the debate had subsided, Peter made an emphatic physical gesture affirming his authority and centrality. The silence afterwards indicated the finality of what Peter had just said; no one disputes either his speech or his right to make it. In fact, the witness of Paul and Barnabas, along with James’s speech, only reinforce and agree with what Peter says.

Secondly, few non-Catholic commentators seem to notice the striking wording Peter used in his speech. If he was only a witness, wouldn’t he have appealed only to his experience? But while Peter did focus on his experience, the main object of his speech was God: “God made a choice among you, that by my mouth . . .”; “And God . . . bore witness to them, giving them the Holy Spirit”; “He made no distinction”; and “why therefore do you put God to the test?” (vs. 7-10). It is readily apparent that Peter was quite comfortable in being a spokesman for God. Even James seems to take this for granted by stating, “Simeon has related how God first concerned himself . . .” (v. 14). There is an immediacy to Peter’s relating of God’s work which is noticeably absent from James’s speech.

As mentioned, Paul, Barnabas, and James all reinforced and agreed with Peter’s declaration, albeit in different ways. The first two related “the signs and wonders God” had been working “among the Gentiles” (v. 12). James pointed first to the words of Peter and then to the Prophets (vs. 14-15). Those who claim James’s speech was the definitive one point to the language in verse 19 (“Therefore it is my judgement . . .”) as evidence for James’s primacy. Yet James is simply suggesting a way of implementing what Peter had already definitively expressed. “Peter speaks as the head and spokesman of the apostolic Church,” state Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch in the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible, “He formulates a doctrinal judgment about the means of salvation, whereas James takes the floor after him to suggest a pastoral plan for inculturating the gospel in mixed communities where Jewish and Gentile believers live side by side (15:13-21)” (232).
—http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/ ... trine.html

Further Reading

The Acts of the Apostles (Ignatius Catholic Study Bible; Ignatius Press, 2002), with commentary by Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch
Jesus, Peter & The Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Queenship, 1996), by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess
Upon This Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in Scripture and the Early Church (Ignatius Press, 1999), by Stephen K. Ray
The Early Papacy: To the Synod of Chalcedon (Ignatius Press, 2008; orig. 1920), by Adrian Fortescue
Magisterium: Teacher and Guardian of the Faith (Sapientia Press, 2007), by Avery Cardinal Dulles, S.J.

PS Oh yeah. And as an afterthought, thank you for the help, Jehoshaphat. I appreciate it. And needed it, maybe just a little.

[Eleventh Doctor]

We went over the Acts 15 issue already. I quote Acts 15:18 "Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God" The I in this sentence being James. Your article says it's only agreeing with Peter but my interpretation is that James is claiming authority and the right to judge what is right. In any case if this was an argument for the primacy of Peter then it would be Antioch not Rome who has primacy since Peter in this council was bishop of Antioch.

I accept the sources up Ephraim the Syrian and again affirm that I grant preeminence to Peter and his successors; that does not equal universal authority and infallibility. Also can you please provide links to your sources? Because I am finding some radically different translations.

For example you say

[A]nd 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

I read instead this.

[A]nd although after His resurrection He bestows equal power upon all the Apostles, and says: 'As the Father has sent me, I also send you. Receive ye the Holy Spirit: if you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained,' yet that He might display unity, He established by His authority the origin of the same unity as beginning from one. Surely the rest of the Apostles also were that which Peter was, endowed with an equal partnership of office and of power.

Completely different.

[Pound Foolish]

Even if you read more into the passage, you must agree that, whatever else he may be doing, James is agreeing. He did not suggest a solution himself. He concurred with Peter.

As to the quotes, again, you mustn't expect me to provide a link for things. I prefer books. However, the list is online, on Catholic Answers. Catholic Answers existed long before their website and is a well known, authoritative source:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/peters-primacy

However, one might ask, which sites do you find your versions on? And do you expect versions of documents you find online to be top-notch translations?

[Eleventh Doctor]

He said it was by his judgement though, so he was the one who decided. In any case that makes him just as authoritative as the pope at the Fourth Council when the pope agreed with St. Cyril of Alexandria. You also didn't answer my question about Antioch.

Well lets focus on on the quote by Cyprian of Carthage in his work The Unity of the Catholic Church since that is the strongest quote for primacy pre-schism. I looked it up and found the Christian Classics Ethereal Library translation that is radically different than your translation. This Catholic translation from Eternal Word Television Network https://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/churc1.htm also disagrees with your translation. This source, another Catholic source, also disagrees with your translation: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm This issue is explained in the Encyclopedia Britannica article on St. Cyprian, he wrote two drafts of chapter 4 where it talks about Peter's Primacy, as the article says he did not accept Rome's jurisdictional prerogatives. Thus your draft is the one in error: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... #ref109285

[Pound Foolish]

So, Good Doctor, I asked around, and people supplied some information.

I just want to point out that I don't think the Cyprian quote is the strongest pro-primacy one before the Schism. I think the comments by the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon and Ephesus are stronger, because those Councils affirm that the bishop of Rome is the head of the Church, that he has a right to depose bishops in the East, and they seek his ratification in order for the Councils to be valid. (Admittedly, Chalcedon is more clear than Ephesus about this, because Ephesus doesn't explicitly say, by my reading anyway, that the pope's ratification is *necessary*. But Chalcedon does.)

I also think St. Irenaeus has stronger comments about the primacy of the Church of Rome. He even says it is necessary to maintain communion with the Church of Rome and implies that it cannot fall into heresy, which is an early support for papal infallibility.

The Catholic Encyclopedia presents an alternative explanation of the two versions. In their explanation, if I understand it correctly, St. Cyprian sent the book "On the Unity of the Catholic Church" to Pope Cornelius on the occasion of a papal schism started by Novatian. If their explanation is correct, it seems that St. Cyprian added the comments about the one chair of Peter and the need to remain in communion with Rome as a way of scolding the Novatianist schismatics. If that is to be believed, then it seems the more pro-papal version is the later edition.

It is interesting that the Encyclopedia Brittanica and the Catholic Encyclopedia seem to present contrary explanations of the two editions. Brittanica seems to say that St. Cyprian edited out the more pro-papal comments, while the Catholic Encyclopedia seems to say he edited them in. It seems to me that we should judge which one is correct by examining the evidence. What evidence have they presented?

Brittanica's evidence seems to be, in your words, "he wrote two drafts of chapter 4 where it talks about Peter's Primacy, as the article says he did not accept Rome's jurisdictional prerogatives."

What evidence do they have that St. Cyprian did not accept Rome's jurisdictional prerogatives? I think the evidence suggests the contrary. For example, in 254 A.D., St. Cyprian wrote to Pope Stephen to urge him to depose a bishop in France. (Letter 66) If he didn't believe in Rome's jurisdictional prerogatives, why did he appeal to the pope to depose someone in another country?

Another reason to doubt Brittanica's explanation and accept the Catholic Encyclopedia's is that the Catholic Encyclopedia's fits other data we know. For example, we know that St. Cyprian opposed the Novatianist schism when it started, and sent Pope Cornelius a letter saying so and including some other documents. Letter 41 says so. That fits what the Catholic Enyclopedia says about the occasion for his editing in the comments about remaining in communion with the chair of Peter.

For these reasons, I think we should accept the explanation of this issue by the Catholic Encyclopedia, and regard the edition with the more pro-papal comments as an authentic expression of the mind of St. Cyprian.

The edition that lacks the comments about there being one chair of Peter still says that Jesus built His Church on Peter. It also says that the unity of the Church proceeds from Peter, and when he says that we must remain in communion with this Church, his remarks about the Church proceeding from Peter form the backdrop. To me, that is evidence that we must remain in communion with Rome, even though it is not as explicit as it is in the edition with the more pro-papal comments.

As to EWTN, it seem it took its translation from New Advent, and New Advent took its translation from a compilation of Church Fathers' writings by Philip Schaff, a Protestant. Catholic Answers, on the other hand, took their translation from William Jurgens, a Catholic. That could explain why they are different.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Council of Ephesus affirms, as do I, that the source of authority for bishops comes from Peter. Where our interpretation differs is that you think that authority came to rest in one See where as I would say it rests in all the Sees. You have still failed to address my point that if Peter has this unique authority why does it rest in Rome versus Antioch which was the Apostles primary See.

I don't see the pope's right to depose bishops in those Councils, could you quote relevant passages?

You did not quote St. Irenaeus.

I take St. Cyprian's quotes again to say that all of the bishops find unity in the Apostolic teachings of St. Peter, not that the last See St. Peter held is now imbued with extra power. St. Cyprian says in letter 66 "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." The bishop meaning every local bishop, this is just saying that to be in the Church you must be in communion with your local bishop, nothing more. The seat of Peter again, refers to all bishops not just Rome.

As far as saying that he wrote to ask the pope to depose a bishop in France, my reading of the letter suggest that he is simply alerting the pope and other bishops to the fact that the Novation heretic in question has been attempting to establish communion elsewhere. This is just the normal behavior of bishops toward one another when a heretic is attempting to flee the local excommunication. I see in this letter no recognition of universal jurisdiction.

I think our disagreement lies in what we think the chair of Peter to be, you believe it to be a specific See while I believe it to be the authority from which all Sees derive their authority. I also again affirm that I have no problem giving the bishop of Rome special honor but that does not extend to universal authority or individual infallibility.

The differences in translations appears to be moot as we have discussed both translations at this point.

[Jared DeWhite]

Why do Catholics believe that bread turns into real flesh and wine turns into real blood during mass?

[jehoshaphat]

Because that is what Jesus said in the Bible.

[Jared DeWhite]

It was symbolic, not his actual body. if it were is cannibalism okey?

[Eleventh Doctor]

A reminder, while you should literally partake of the Body and Blood of Christ you should not feed the troll.

[jehoshaphat]

I know not to feed the troll. But It is a valid point I am sure some people want to discuss. I will say simply one more thing to Jared. If it were symbolic why did of Jesus' followers leave after what he said in John 6?

[Gooey98]

They left because they didn't understand that he was speaking symbolically.

This may sound like a stupid question, but I'm genuinely curious: if bread and wine actually turns into Jesus' flesh and blood when you take communion, why does it still taste like bread and wine?

[jehoshaphat]

Jesus had said "Truly, truly" In Hebrew tradition when a person said a double thing it means that the speaker is not speaking hypothetically. It is a fact. Jesus had been using symbolic language all the way up until he said that. Read the book of John. It is clearly spelled out.
Jesus repeatedly says that he is the bread of life

John 6:32 Jesus answered them: In all truth I tell you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven, it is my Father who gives you the bread from heaven, the true bread;

Then again

John 6:41 Meanwhile the Jews were complaining to each other about him, because he had said, 'I am the bread that has come down from heaven.'

Then again

John 6:48 I am the bread of life.

Then again

John 6:51 I am the living bread which has come down from heaven. Anyone who eats this bread will live for ever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world.'

Then again

JOhn 6:52-55 Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, 'How can this man give us his flesh to eat?'

Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
Anyone who does eat my flesh and drink my blood has eternal life, and I shall raise that person up on the last day.

For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.

56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood lives in me and I live in that person.

The rejected him because it is hard. It is the hardest teaching of the church. It still tastes like bread in wine because the substance changes not the form. Many left because of the hardness of this teaching. He even asked the apostles if they would leave to because he new it was a hard teaching.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Exactly they didn't leave because they didn't understand it was symbolic, they asked Jesus to clarify and Jesus could have said this is symbolic but He didn't that's why they left.

And it still taste like bread and wine because it is still bread and wine and the Body and Blood, two natures like Christ.