Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
8 
Report this post
In the Acts of the Apostles we read that it was at Antioch that the followers of Christ were first called Christians.
Acts 11:26- “And they conversed there in the church a whole year; and they taught a great multitude, so that at Antioch the disciples were first named Christians.”
Interestingly, it was also at Antioch (in the year 110) that the term “Catholic” was first applied to the Christian Church. This was done by the famous martyr of the ancient Christian Church, St. Ignatius.
St. Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Smyrnaeans, Chapter 8, 110 A.D.- “Apart from the bishop, let no one do anything that pertains to the Church. The only true Eucharist is the one performed by the bishop or by him whom the bishop has appointed. Wherever the bishop is, there must be the congregation, just as wherever Jesus Christ is there is the Catholic Church.”
In Greek, the term “Catholic” means universal. Thus, the one universal Christian Church came to be known as the Catholic Church. It makes sense that the terms Christian and Catholic became interchangeable, for the one Christian Church which existed from the beginning was the Catholic Church. Ignatius had a real connection to the original Christians. He was the third bishop of Antioch. Ignatius knew St. Polycarp who knew the apostle John himself.
The early Church believed in the doctrine of the primacy of Rome and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church. The Bishop of Rome is the successor to the authority of Saint Peter, and as we know from the Sacred Scriptures, Christ chose Saint Peter as the first among the apostles and granted him special authority, establishing Peter as the head of the whole Church.
Matthew 16:18-19- “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.”
Jesus gives the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, and declares that whatsoever he binds on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever he looses upon earth shall be loosed in Heaven. Even though all 12 disciples are gathered together for this meeting, Jesus says these things only to St. Peter.
Matthew 16:19- “And I will give unto thee [Peter] 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.”
No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church.
John chapter 21 provides more proof that Jesus entrusted all the members of His Church to St. Peter.
John 21:15-17- “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, Tend 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.”
We see here, in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to St. Peter. The dogmatic First Vatican Council of the Catholic Church said that this moment in John 21, after the Resurrection of Jesus, was the moment that Jesus actually gave to St. Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in Matthew 16.
It’s important to emphasize that this moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was the point at which Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. This is significant because some non-Catholics bring up St. Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ in John 18:25 and following. When Peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St. Peter the authority as pope. The words in Mt. 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. They promise that Jesus would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church, but that office was not conferred upon Peter until after the Resurrection, by these words in John 21:15-17. Therefore, St. Peter’s denial of Christ poses no problem at all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.
IN MATTHEW’S LIST, PETER IS NOT ONLY MENTIONED FIRST, BUT CALLED “FIRST” OR “CHIEF”
Matthew 10:2- “Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first [protos], Simon, who is called Peter…”
The Greek word used in Matthew 10:2 (protos) means first or chief or principal. Since no other numbers are given in the list – and Peter was not the first one who followed Jesus (Andrew was) – this statement is clearly not meant to assign a number to Simon Peter. It is to indicate that he is the chief or leader or principal of the twelve. Matthew is literally saying: The Chief, Peter.
It’s also interesting to note that protos is used to mean “chief” in Matthew 20:27.
Matthew 20:27- “And whosoever will be chief [protos] among you, let him be your servant.”
The very same Gospel (Matthew) already told us that Peter is the chief among them (Matthew 10:2). The statement in Mathew 20:27, about who will be the chief among them, is therefore not some general instruction; but it is one that has a very specific and concrete application. The chief, Peter, must also act like a servant, discharging his position of leadership with humility. This verse is one reason why a pope (who is chief in the Church of Jesus) is called “servant of the servants of God” (servus servorum dei).
The early Church fathers, the prominent early Christian writers of the first centuries, recognized that Peter is the rock. There are many citations one could bring forward, but here are just a few.
Tertullian, On Monogamy, 213 A.D., refers to Peter and speaks of the Church, “built upon him…” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 1:381)
St. Cyril of Alexandria (370-444), who played a key role with the Council of Ephesus, stated in his Commentary on John- “He [Jesus] suffers him to be no longer called Simon... He changed his name into Peter, from the word petra (rock); for on him He was afterwards to found His Church.”
St. Basil the Great (330-379 A.D.), Against Eunomians, 4- “Peter… who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church.”
St. Gregory Nazienzen, great Eastern father (329-389 A.D.), Oration 26- “… of all the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church…”
St. John Chrysostom, great Eastern father and Bishop of Constantinople, Homily 3, De. Poenit. 4, 387 A.D.- “Peter himself the head or crown of the Apostles… when I name Peter I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation…”
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368), On the Trinity, 6, 37: “This faith is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of Hell cannot prevail against her.” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 9, p. 112.)
St. Hilary of Poitiers (300-368), On the Trinity, 6, 20: “Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.” (NPNF2, Vol. 9, p. 105.)
St. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary on Matthew, 7, 6- “Peter believeth first, and is the prince of the apostleship.”
The claim that The early Church believed in the doctrine of the primacy of Rome and the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome over the entire Church is simply a laughable lie. Even those quotes from early church fathers do not clearly state that they believed what is being claimed here. None of them call him pope or that he is the head of the church. And even if they did, that would be just their interpretation, we have Scriptures that we can read and test their claims upon. Here's an article exploring exact opposite - African bishops rejecting popes authority that he tried to assert over them. Link to the article [web.archive.org]
Let's take a closer look at the claims about the texts from the Gospel of Matthew. Jesus says to Peter in Matthew 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. First it is in the future tense, He will give the keys, so it is coming some time later in time, it wasn't given yet. Second, what will happen when Peter is given the keys? Text clearly says: whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. The same promise is given to all apostles in Matthew 18, but my opponent here claims that the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18, must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique position of authority in the Church. But that is nowhere in the Biblical texts, he simply assumes that Peter is over everyone, if we actually read those text it is not there, as a matter of fact Peter is promised to be able to bind and lose and the rest of apostles gets the same promise. And ability to do those things comes from where? From being given the keys, Matthew simply does not need to repeat it the second time in Matthew 18. All apostles were given the keys to bind and lose.
Yes, there were more claims, but I simply do not want to spend another hour typing all that, what I will do though is drop some resources for those that care.
Church history course by James White
Debates of James White against Roman Catholics
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists, Book 7, Chap. 3, AD 384: “… blessed Peter (for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardon only) both deserved to be placed over all the Apostles, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which he was to communicate to the rest.”
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists, Book 1, Chap. 10, AD 384: “Therefore none of the heretics possess either the Keys, which Peter alone received, or the Ring, with which we read that the Fountain has been sealed; nor is any heretic one of those to whom that Garden belongs in which God plants His young trees.”
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists, Book 2, Chaps. 2-3, AD 384: “You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles… that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim----each for himself----separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement…”
St. Optatus of Milevis, Against the Donatists, Book 2, Chap. 4, AD 384: “… we read that Peter received the saving Keys – Peter, that is to say, the first of our line, to whom it was said by Christ: 'To thee will I give the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' and these keys 'the gates of Hell shall not overcome.' How is it, then, that you strive to usurp for yourselves the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, you who, with your arguments, and audacious sacrilege, war against the Chair of Peter?”
Here’s an English translation of the passage:
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Carmen De Vita Sua, AD 382: “Nature has not given (us) two suns, but (she has given us) twin Romes, beacons for the whole world, power both old and new, differing one from another inasmuch as one outclasses the East in splendor, the other the West, mutually holding up beauty to beauty.
But as for the faith of these, the one [i.e. old Rome] has coursed straight for a longer time and still does now, binding together all the West with her saving words, as it is right that she is the president [πρόεδρον] over all, venerating the divine harmony (of the faith) in its entirety.” (J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 37:1068)
This is a powerful passage. St. Gregory teaches that in regard to the faith, the See of Rome is the president over all. That’s clear support for a papal primacy of jurisdiction over all in the Church, for Rome was known to be the See of St. Peter and his successors, the popes. St. Gregory uses the Greek word πρόεδρον to describe Rome’s authority over all. Πρόεδρον is the accusative form of the noun πρόεδρος, which means president. πρόεδρος is cognate with προεδρία, which means presidency, a term that has also been used for the office of popes. Literally, πρόεδρος means “one who is seated in the first place”.
So, when St. Gregory says that Rome is the president over all in regard to the faith, is he merely talking about some kind of primacy of honor that doesn’t include authority? Of course not. The claim is preposterous. He is talking about Rome’s authority or presidency over all other bishops and churches.
In fact, in the early Church bishops were not only called ἐπίσκοποι (episkopoi) but sometimes πρόεδροι (proedroi), presidents, the plural of the word πρόεδρος. Indeed, at the 7th century Council of Trullo (a council cited by many Eastern ‘Orthodox’), both words πρόεδρον and προεδρία were used specifically to describe a bishop’s authority and power within his territory.
Now, it is a fact that the early Church recognized that a bishop (as πρόεδρος or president of his congregation) had jurisdiction in his area, which included the power to approve, command, rule, punish, etc.
Thus, when St. Gregory speaks of Rome and Constantinople in regard to the faith, and uses πρόεδρον to say that Rome is the president over all, he is teaching that the See of Rome had authority over all the other bishops and thus the entire Church. Further, just like a bishop as πρόεδρος of his diocese had a power of jurisdiction that included the authority to decree punish, etc., Rome (as πρόεδρος over all) possessed that power over the universal Church.
But people who don’t want the truth – who don’t want to accept what Christ instituted in St. Peter – will try to explain anything away. It should also be noted that many modern Eastern ‘Orthodox’ hold that their bishops, even within their own territories, are not over their people and that they have no power apart from them. That is an absurd position which further exposes the falsity of Eastern ‘Orthodox’ ecclesiology. That position denies the reality of a hierarchy in the Church and clearly contradicts the teaching of the first millennium, but that’s a separate discussion.
Moreover, when St. Gregory says that Rome is “binding together all the west” (perhaps a reference to how heresies were ravaging the East more so than the West), he uses δέουσα (deousa), a present participle from the verb δέω (deo). Well, that verb δέω is the very verb used in Mt. 16:19 to describe St. Peter’s authority to bind. So there’s a connection between how St. Gregory describes Rome’s authority to bind and how Scripture describes St. Peter’s authority to bind, and in the very sentence in which St. Gregory refers to Rome’s authority to bind he connects it with Rome being the president over all – a clear indication that Rome has a universal primacy of jurisdiction that includes the power to bind.
Furthermore, in a different work, St. Gregory Nazianzen singles out the Apostle St. Peter as “the unbreakable rock, to whom was allotted the Key” (πετρης άρραγέος γενέτης κλήιδα λαχόντος).
St. Gregory Nazianzen, Carminum, Liber I: “If another Paul should exist, (he knows not) whether he will beget a Christ-murdering son, an Annas or a wicked Caiaphas, or another Judas. Nor does a man who has put forth evil, such as Judas, (know) whether he will be called the father of a godlike Paul or indeed of a Peter, the unbreakable rock, to whom was allotted the Key.” (J.P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 37:559)
It’s also noteworthy that St. Gregory Nazianzen was the Bishop of Constantinople and he presided, for a period of time, at the Council of Constantinople in 381. So, this Eastern father who presided at the First Council of Constantinople leaves us with clear support for Catholic teaching on the papal primacy of jurisdiction. That’s because Our Lord Jesus Christ founded the Papacy upon St. Peter, and the office He established in St. Peter was known in all ages, just as Vatican I teaches. To be a true Christian and saved it’s necessary to be a traditional Catholic.
To those that are new to these things - it might seem overwhelming on first sight, you might think "oh my, they do seem to have so much evidence", nope, not true. That is why I shared a little of resources from protestant side, there are answers to all those claims. An average Joe like you and me do not have hundreds of hours to read through all the church fathers(preferably in the original language) and understand them in their own historical/theological context, but we do have people(like Dr. James White and others) who does this on professional level and they have answers. Actually protestants had those answers since the beginning of reformation. Seek and you shall find. In the end it all comes to authority of Scriptures against authority of man made traditions.