David Palm had written a tract, James White vs. Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, which addressed the main arguments of White's and Webster's. Rick, whose words are shown in blue below responded to a number of statements found in the Palm article. My responses follow Rick's. I apologize about the length of this article! There was a lot of ground to cover.

==================

Rick quoting David Palm - "Thus the interpretation which understands "this rock" to refer to Peter's confession is, in the history of exegesis, a polemical device and not a straightforward, unbiased reading of the text. This establishes it as a secondary interpretation, which ultimately must derive its validity (or lack thereof) from an underlying literal or primary exegesis of the text."

Martin: Let's actually look at what some of these Church fathers actually said .... and then I will address other texts in which other secondary interpretations have been used. Many of the quotes I use of the early Church fathers, William Webster, and James White come from the book, Upon This Rock by Stephen K. Ray. Rather than give every similar quote from each of these fathers, I will list only a few per father.

ORIGEN:

"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3)

"Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith,' He says, 'why did you doubt!'" (Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

William Webster writes that "Chrysostom followed the teaching of Origen that the rock is to be considered as Peter's profession of faith and this exegesis became the standard for the Eastern Church and theologians as a whole throughout the centuries" (Church of Rome, 51). Catholic author Stephen Ray comments: "However, we see in this quote from Origen that the confession of Peter is not mentioned; rather the foundation of the Church is Peter himself."

AMBROSE:

"We recognize in the letter of your holiness the vigilance of the good shepherd. You faithfully watch over the gate entrusted to you, and you with pious solicitude you guard Christ's sheepfold (Jn 10:7ff.), you are wirthy to have the Lord's sheep hear follow you. Since you know the sheep of Christ you will easily catch the wolves and confront them like a wary shepherd, lest they disperse the Lord's flock by their constant lack of faith and their bestial howling." (Synodal Letter of Ambrose, Sabinus, Bassian, and Others to Pope Siricius 42,1).

Ambrose equates the bishop of Rome with the shepherd of the universal flock of God.

"It is Peter himself that He says, "You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.' Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal." (Commentaries on Twelve of David's Psalms 40,30)

"Christ is the Rock, 'For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,' and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or, Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith." (Expos. in Luc.)

"For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which he entrusted to Peter and his successors." (De Sacerdotio, 53)

"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and bone hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven'; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, the great Apostles, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed." (Homily 3 de Poenit. 4)

"This most holy See has preserved the supremacy over all Churches on the earth, for one especial reason among many others; to wit, that it has remained intact from the defilement of heresy. No one has ever sat on that Chair, who has taught heretical doctrine; rather that See has ever preserved unstained the Apostolic grace." (Epistle 116 to Renatus).

An Eastern Church father acknowledges the supremacy of Rome.

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys to the kingdom of heaven." (On the Trinity, 20, NPNF2, 9:105)

Stephen Ray comments on James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, and White's usage of Hilary: "Why does White not inform his readers that Hilary, in the same treatise, refers to Peter as the foundation stone of the Church? Is Hilary confused? Is it Peter or his faith? Does Hilary see two applications of the passage as mutually exclusive, as Protestants like White are wont to do, forcing them into two, separate, water-tight compartments? Why is it so difficult for opponents of the Papacy to see there is no conflict here? Even Pope John Paul II, in his book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" refers to the rock of Matthew 16 as Peter and as Christ."

"At Rome. the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul; then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul, whom Paul remembers in his Epistle to the Romans .... The succession of the bishops of Rome is as follows: Peter and Paul, Linus and Cletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, whom I have already mentioned above in my enumerating of the bishops. (The Panacea against All Heresies 27,6)

Epiphanaius not only affirms the historical fact that Peter was bishop of Rome, he uses it in his refutation of the heretics.

"[In] the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should.... With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me.... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.... For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church." (Against the Epistle of Manichaeus [Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti.)

In James White's book, The Roman Catholic Controversy, on page 245, he recommends his readers to read 'The History of the Christian Church' by Phillip Schaff. Curiously, Schaff affirms what White himself denies:

"Augustine, it is true, unquestionably understood by the church the visible Catholic church, descended from the apostles, especially from Peter; through the succession of bishops; and according to the usage of his time he called the Roman church by the eminence the sedes apostolic [Apostolic Chair]'. (History of the Christian Church, 3:307)

White in his book denies that the Fathers applied Matthew 16 to Peter. He tries to prove that Matthew 16 was understood differently by the Fathers than it is today by the Church. The use of this paragraph from Schaff demonstrates that Augustine did see Matthew 16 as applying to Peter and that Rome was viewed by Augustine as the Apostolic Chair. This is a significant admission.

Steve Ray further comments: "Schaff does continue that he feels that St. Augustine felt like that the bishop of Rome had limited authority. Being aware that Schaff is a non-Catholic and is not going to espouse the Catholic point of view on the papacy though he is more honest in his treatment of the Fathers than most of the current "Protestant Apologists" I know.

I am not trying to explain Schaff's fuller theology nor to deny it, I am simply making a point that whereas White suggests that his readers refer to four "fine presentations available on the topic" to prove his point against the Church, Schaff actually states that Augustine recognized Rome as the Apostolic Chair because of Peter's unique calling and passed on through succession."

Optatus of Milevis: "(F)or the good of unity blessed Peter, for whom it would have been enough if after his denial he had obtained pardone only, deserved to be placed before all the apostles, and alone received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, to be communicated to the rest." (De Schismate Donatistorum,7:3(A.D. 370),in GILES,120)

Protestant Church historian JND Kelly also sees Augustine as viewing the bishop of Rome as having primacy. Kelly comments on early Church father Optatus of Milevis views:

"By this he[Optatus of Milevis] seems to have meant, as indeed he proceeds to explain, that the episcopal commission was first and uniquely conferred upon St. Peter, and that the other apostles and their successors participate equally in the selfsame commission. In this way the possibility of there being equal chairs, with the disunity which would inevitably be ruled out. For Optatus, therefore, communion with the see of Peter was a vital necessity, although we should note that he laid almost equal stress on the desirability of communion with the Oriental Churches and he called the septiformis ecclesia Asiae. Augustine's attitude was not dissimilar." (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, p419) - emphasis added

"When we hear the name of Peter, that name does not cause our minds to dwell on his substance, but we figure to our minds the properties that are connected with him. For we at once, on hearing that name, think of the son of him that came Bethsaida, Andrew's brother; him that was called from amongst fishermen unto the ministry of the Apostleship; him who on account of the pre-eminence of his faith received upon himself the building of the Church." (Adv. Eunom. 4)

"One of these mountains was Peter, upon which rock the Lord promised to build His Church (Comm. in Esai 2,66)

"It seemed to me to be desirable to send a letter to the bishop of Rome, begging him to examine our condition, and since there are difficulties in the way of representatives being sent from the West by a general synodial decree, to advise him (the bishop of Rome) to exercise his personal authority in the matter, choosing suitable persons to sustain the labours of a journey, - suitable, too, by gentleness and firmness of character, to correct the unruly among us here." (Letter 69 to Anathasius, NPNF2 8:165)

Basil understood the authority of the bishop of Rome and Peter being the rock upon which the Church is built.

==================

Palm - "Then too, apologists such as White and Webster present evidence almost exclusively from a subset of Fathers who support the confessional interpretation. But in doing so they do their readers two disservices. They ignore the massive (indeed, one is tempted to call it unanimous) testimony in support of the personal interpretation of the text which equates Peter and the rock. "

Martin - Clearly, many, many more than a simple 17 fathers looked at Peter being the rock. I'm not up to typing each of them out, but in addition to the quotes I show above, here is a sampling of tracts that show this:

° Peter's Primacy
° On Peter

In addition, the bishop of Rome, was clearly looked upon as the successor of Peter, holding the seat of primacy by both the Eastern and Western Church. A number of tracts with quotes which show this:

° The Authority of the Pope - Part I
° The Authority of the Pope - Part II
° The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
° Peter's Successors

Even the subset of 68 varying views to which you refer, nearly all of them also looked as Peter as also being the rock. As already pointed out, many fathers saw multiple applications of the Matthew 16 passage. You see Pope John Paul doing this in his writings. From his book, Crossing the Threshold of Hope:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does this as well:

424. "Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'[Mt 16:16 .] On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.[Cf. Mt 16:18; St. Leo the Great, Sermo 4 3: PL 54,150 - 152; 51,1: PL 54, 309B; 62, 2: PL 54, 350-351; 83, 3: PL 54, 431-432.] 'To preach. . . the unsearchable riches of Christ'[Eph 3:8.]"

552. "Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve;[Cf Mk 3:16 ; Mk 9:2; Lk 24:34 ; 1 Cor 15:5.] Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' Our Lord then declared to him: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.'[Mt 16:18 .] Christ, the 'living Stone',[1 Pet 2:4.] thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.[Cf. Lk 22:32 .]"

Clearly, neither the Pope nor the Catechism are contradicting each other in their varying interpretations.

What you will not find in a single early Church father is a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. Stephen Ray comments in his book, Upon This Rock:

No Father who extended this passage to include Peter's faith, often dealing with the Arian heretics, drove a wedge between Peter himself and his confession nor did they simply interpret this passage to only mean Peter's faith in order to deny the papacy.

==================

Palm - "And they don't normally tell their readers that the very same Fathers who are cited in support of the confessional exegesis explicitly support the personal interpretation as well."

Martin - I believe if you actually read the early Church fathers in their entirety, you will find their actual beliefs on Peter, his successors, and the primacy of the bishop of Rome. The tracts I showed above are a start. Read those excerpts in their entirety from their writings found on-line or in theology libraries. I welcome you to do so. What we should avoid is simply searching for proof-texts, like Webster does, and ignoring the context and the entirety of the Church Fathers theological thought on this matter. Unfortunately, Webster does his readers a disservice by providing only the alternative views, while ignoring the same Father's view of the primacy of bishop of Rome.

==================

Palm - "But unless these apologists are content not only to set the Fathers in opposition to each other, but even to pit a given Father against himself, they must offer some additional explanation for the ubiquitous occurrence of the personal interpretation alongside the occasional use of the confessional interpretation."

Rick's response - I find it hard to believe that Palm doesn't know that the fathers' interpretations WERE in opposition to each other from time to time. And he also fails to demonstrate instances of the "personal interpretation alongside...the confessional interpretation" that is inconsistent with the view that, as Ambrose said, Peter is chief in confession, but "not in rank". Palm is creating a false dichotomy.

Martin - As already demonstrated from current Catholic writings, and from the writings of the early Church Fathers, none of them are in opposition with each other. Surely, you won't suggest the Catechism of the Catholic Church opposes itself?

And as William Webster agrees, not a single early Church Father denied the primacy of the bishop of Rome. There simply was no opposition on this point.

==================

Palm - "I was challenged later, by those same scholars and by Catholic apologists, to see from the use of Isa 22:22 in Matt 16:19, that our Lord, as the son of David and new King of Israel, reestablished the office of 'steward' or 'one who is over the house' (in modern parlance, the prime minister). He gives that office to Peter, as symbolized by the 'keys of the kingdom.' "

Martin - A slight similarity? Let's look at them:

Matthew 16:15-19 "He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona ! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you ( in the Greek it is "you - singular") the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' " RSV ( clarification added according to the Greek text.)

To find the context of the meaning of the keys we look to the Bible, Isaiah 22.

Isaiah 22:15,19-24 "Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace... 19 I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open." NAB

Isaiah 36:1-3 "In the fourteenth year of King Hezekiah, ... 3 there came out to him the master of the palace, Eliakim, son of Hilkiah, and Shebna the scribe, and the herald Joah, son of Asaph." NAB

The keys represent absolute power to rule. They are owned by the King of Israel who entrusts them to his representative the "master of the palace." Christ is the true King of Israel who gives his keys to Peter. Another similarity between this passage and the office of Papacy is the reference to him being a "father." Pope comes from the word "Papa" meaning father.

The key of the "house of David" implies succession because King David had been dead for hundreds of years at the time of King Hezekiah's rule. Just as the king had a successor so did the head of the household, or the "master of the palace."

This is more than just a slight similarity.

Dave Armstrong, comments (The Papacy and Infallibility: "Keys of the Kingdom")

==================

Palm - "This is why biblical and patristic evidence concerning St. Peter is important, even if in some sources there is no explicit connection made to the ongoing prerogatives of the bishops of Rome."

Martin - I think my quotes above as well as the above mentioned tracts already address Origen's and Augustine's views.

As far a Luis Bermejo, I am not familiar with him, his work, and do not understand how he can reach such a conclusion with the wealth of information to support the primacy of the bishop of Rome. I would rather not question his orthodoxy without having more information about him or from his writings.

==================

Palm - "Finally, Erickson asks, 'We also need to ask what the point of the Last Supper would have been had there been no command to repeat it' (Ibid.). And similarly, Catholics ask what point there would be to reestablish the office of "steward" or prime minister if it would only last for a single generation. Certainly the need for such an office did not disappear."

Martin - The Matthew 16 passage clearly involves both opening and closing/ binding and loosing both in heaven and on earth along with the power of the keys. There simply is no biblical support to support a one-time opening by Peter and thereafter being an unneeded authority.

==================

Palm - "So, circling back around to our central topic, on what basis is the idea of succession of the papal office denied by Protestants? Certainly not simply because there is no explicit Scripture text to that effect. For there are plenty of implicit pointers and on other matters implicit texts-or even no text at all-are sufficient for Protestants."

[Martin: Rick cuts and pastes a number of long quotes from various theologians, which I am clipping for sake of brevity. Hopefully, the abbreviated quotes will still preserve the author's intent.]

"The scriptural text most commonly cited in favor of papal infallibility is Luke 22.32. There is no lack of patristic commentary on the text. None of the Fathers interpreted it as meaning that Peter's successors were infallible. NO CONVINCING ARGUMENT HAS EVER BEEN PUT FORWARD EXPLAINING WHY THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE STATED THAT THE TEXT IMPLIED A DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY IF THAT IS WHAT THEY UNDERSTOOD IT TO MEAN .....Whatever the council fathers may have meant by the formula they accepted concerning the unfailing faith of the apostolic see, THEIR MEANING CAN HAVE HAD LITTLE CONNECTION WITH THE MODERN DOCTRINE OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY" (Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (Leiden: Brill, 1972), pp. 11-13).

Martin - First off, I would note that Tieney is simply addressing the historic use of Luke 22:32 as a "proof-text" for papal infalliblilty and is not denying papal infalliblility. Brian Tierney, in his Origins of Papal Infallibility, showed that when the theory first emerged, "it was advanced as a limitation on papal authority: it meant that the infallible utterances of prior popes could not be reformed by the pope in power at any given moment" (p. 605) Some recent authors have exaggerated what was actually defined at Vatican I. Some examples: Hans Kung, in his book, "Infallible? An Inquiry"; Brian Tierney, "Origins of Papal Infallibility"; August Hasler, "How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion."

Catholic theologian, Fr. Mateo, explains another issue Tierney brings up in his book:

==================

Martin - Let's address the argument that papal infallibility was unheard of in the first millenium.

Several quotes from early Church fathers (there are many others) that are entirely consistent with papal infallibility:

"With this Church [of Rome] it is necessary that each church agree, on account of its superior origin . . . in which has been preserved the tradition which is from the apostles . . . it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man depositing his money in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account we are bound to avoid them [the heretics], but to love the things pertaining to the Church with the utmost care, and to lay hold of truth's tradition. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how would it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary in that case to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the churches?" (Against Heresies, 3:3-4, A.D.180).

"The heretics dare to sail off and carry letters from profane schismatics to the chair of Peter, to the first of Churches from which first came the unity of the priesthood. Don't they know that they are Romans there, whose faith was praised by the preaching of the apostle, and among whom faithlessness can have no influence?" (Letter 59 to Pope Cornelius, 14, A.D. 252).

Cyprian mocks the Novatians and their idea will meet approval from the bishop of Rome since the Roman faith cannot be corrupted.

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be . . . a heretic, it is certainly clear that everyone who condemns those who reject Pyrrhus condemns the See of Rome, that is he condemns the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also . . . It is unjust that anyone who has been condemned and expelled by the Apostolic See of Rome for his errors should be honored at all, until he has been received by her, returning to her and to the Lord Himself, by a devout confession of the orthodox faith, by which alone he can receive holiness . . . Let him hurry to satisfy in everything the See of Rome, for if Rome is satisfied all will agree that he is orthodox. For he only speaks foolishly who thinks he can persuade people like me, without first satisfying and begging the most blessed Pope of the Romans, the Apostolic See which has received universal and supreme authority and power of binding and loosing over all the Holy Churches of God in the whole world from the Incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by the holy synods in their canons and definitions. With it the Word who is above the powers of heaven binds and looses in heaven also. Anyone who thinks he can satisfy others without imploring pardon of the most blessed Pope of Rome, is acting like someone who is accused of murder or some other crime and does not prove his innocence to the lawfully appointed judge, but to uselessly demonstrate his innocence to private persons who have no power to acquit him" (Letter to the Priest Marinus of Cyprus, A.D. 641).

I simply do not understand how Luis Bermejo can reach such a conclusion.

==================

Pelikan provides this overview of the Eastern Church's understanding of the rock and Peter in Matthew 16:16-19: "The identification of the gates of hell with the great heresies of the second, third, and fourth centuries was generally accepted. Against these gates of hell not only the apostle Peter, but all the apostles, especially John, had successfully contended with the authority of the word of God. INDEED, THE POWER OF THE KEYS CONFERRED UPON PETER BY CHRIST IN MATTHEW 16:19 WAS NOT RESTRICTED EITHER TO HIM OR TO HIS SUCCESSORS ON THE THRONE OF OLD ROME; ALL THE FAITHFUL BISHOPS OF THE CHURCH WERE IMITATORS AND SUCCESSORS OF PETER. .... Primacy belonged to Peter on account of his confession, and those who confessed Christ to be the Son of the living God, as he had, were the beneficiaries of the promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the church built on the rock (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 160-161).

Martin - I would be interested in Jaroslav Pelikan's current views on this. Since he recently converted (1998?) to Eastern Orthodoxy, his views might have changed somewhat since his Lutheran days.

==================

Martin - First let me address Meyendorff's, an Eastern Orthodox, arguments about Origen. I will simply repeat the previous quotes I gave near the start of this article:

"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3)

"Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith,' He says, 'why did you doubt!'" (Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

Secondly, let's look again at what St. Cyprian actually says. Cyprian was very explicit in his acceptance of the authority of the bishop of Rome.

"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: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven.' On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also which Peter was, but a primacy was given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in a single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church is built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4)

Stephen Ray's book also includes an excerpt from Meyendorff's book, Primacy of Peter - St. Peter in Byzantine Theology.

"Peter is the 'coryphaeus' [leader]of the apostolic choir; he is the first disciple of Christ and speaks always on behalf of all. It is true that other apostles, John, James and Paul, are also called 'coryphaei' and 'primates,' but Peter alone is the 'rock of the Church.' His primacy has, therefore, not only a personal character, but bears an ecclesiological significance." ("St Peter in Byzantine Theology" in Primacy of Peter, 74)

Stephen Ray also notes: "It is only fair to point out that Meyendorff also makes it clear that he does not believe the title coryphaeus or the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Churches supports the Roman ecclesiology or Vatican I understanding of papal infallibility."

==================

"MANY OF THE EASTERN FATHERS WHO ARE RIGHTLY ACKNOWLEDGED TO BE THE GREATEST AND MOST REPRESENTATIVE AND ARE, MOREOVER, SO CONSIDERED BY THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH, DO NOT OFFER US ANY MORE EVIDENCE OF THE PRIMACY. Their writings show that they recognized the primacy of the Apostle Peter, that they regarded the See of Rome as the prima sedes playing A MAJOR PART in the Catholic communion-we are recalling, for example, the writings of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil who addressed himself to Rome in the midst of the difficulties of the schism of Antioch-BUT THEY PROVIDE US WITH NO THEOLOGICAL STATEMENT ON THE UNIVERSAL PRIMACY OF ROME BY DIVINE RIGHT. THE SAME CAN BE SAID OF ST. GREGORY NAZIANZEN, ST. GREGORY OF NYSSA, ST. BASIL, ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM, ST. JOHN DAMASCENE" (Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62).

Martin - Yves M.-J. Congar, a Catholic Cardinal, treated the question of the scope of Papal authority as reflected by Patristic testimony in "Excursus 'C' " of Chapter Six of his Tradition and Traditions. This is a highly recommended book by several Catholic apologetics and evangelistic organizations.

In this book, Congar comments:

I highly recommend this book to understand the nature of Tradition and it's role in the Church. Scott Hahn comments about this book, "I found this book to be of inestimable value in my own investigation into the Catholic Church, indeed it's one of the most influential books I've ever read."

It is available from The Catholic Store.

Batiffol likewise affirms the fact that the Eastern Church, historically, has never embraced the ecclesiology of Roman primacy:

Martin - We've previously addressed Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great, earlier in this article. Also the tract Shown above, The Eastern Church Defends Petrine Primacy and the Papacy, gives a look at what the Eastern Fathers felt about the bishop of Rome and the Papacy. So let's now look at what St. Gregory Nazianzen actually had to say:

"Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the Church; whilst another is the beloved, and reposes on the breast of Jesus; and the rest bear with the prior honor (thus bestowed).

Neither does a man know, though he be the parent of an evil like unto Judas, whether his offspring shall become godlike Paul, or be unto Peter, - Peter who became the unbroken rock, and who had the keys delivered to him." (Oration 26, & Carm. 2 from Berington & Kirk, Faith of Catholics, 2:21)

In Yves Congar's book, Tradition and Traditions, pg 393, further reflection is given on succession:

"Through Tradition, as far as dogma is concerned, consists principally in the integral interpretation of Scripture from the christological, soteriological, ecclesiological and eschatological viewpoints, this Tradition expresses itself in the teaching of the Church.

This teaching of the Church is the rule of faith. This expression, "rule of faith", refers, in the Fathers, not to the formal regulatory principle, but to the concrete rule found in the Church's faith preserved by the succession, which the catechumen accepts and in the profession of which he is baptized. (Augustine remains faithful to this usage too - cf. Part I, pg 177, n.2; P. Batifoll, Le Catholicisme de S. Augustin,) .....

One must always return to the Church's faith and the Church's teaching, and one starts from these in judging."

==================

As shown in this article, early Church father after early Church father, century after century, consistently held that Peter was the Rock on which the church was founded. They might have held alternative applications of Matthew 16 just as the modern Catholic Church does, but not a single father denies the authority of the bishop of Rome, the primacy of Peter, or Petrine succession.

Christ started only one Church and He built that Church on Saint Peter.

Return to Catholicsource Articles

Return the Catholicsource Main Page