Peter Exalts Scripture Over Tradition

Now we may end up debating preterism.
Whether he is talking about a city on the Euphrates or Rome would be an inference on your part. I've shown many Scriptures trying showing that it is not an established fact that Peter was in Rome. The book of Acts covers about the first 30 years of church history and there is no evidence that Peter was in Rome at that time. Can you honestly say that all the fathers were unanimous in stating that Peter is the rock of Matt 16:18?
The French Roman Catholic Lanouy in an epistle that he wrote where he does state his belief that Peter is the rock, produces seventeen Patristic testimonies adhering to that belief. But he goes on to give fourty-four quotations that the rock was the faith that Peter confessed; that the rock was Christ Himself supported by sixteen quotes; and the Church was built on all the Apostles supported by eight. But he was a rebellious Gallican, right?

Rome may have had certain priveledges due to the fact that it was the royal city and a world emoire and would help the other churches financially. Kind of the way the rest of the world looks up to Washigton D.C. today. Politically but not in a spiritually submissive sense.

I dont doubt that you could come up with some quotes from the fathers to support your arguement, so could I for mine. But everytime you quote Scripture its usually a stretch. I also quoted ITim 4:10 in my post above. But you forgot verse 11 where Paul says "only Luke is with me".

None the less here are a few:

Augustine:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.

Ambrose

He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard: 'But who do you say I am,' immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank...This, then, is Peter who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him; the Father revealed it to him. For he who speaks of the true generation of the Father, received it from the Father, did not receive it from the flesh. Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith, that 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies. The day will fail me sooner than the names of heretics and the different sects, yet against all is this general faith-that Christ is the Son of God, and eternal from the Father, and born of the Virgin Mary.

Chrysostum

'But whom say ye that I am?' that is, 'ye that are with me always, and see me working miracles, and have yourselves done many mighty works by me.' What then saith the mouth of the apostles, Peter, the ever fervent, the leader of the apostolic choir? When all are asked, he answers. And whereas when He asked the opinion of the people, all replied to the question; when He asked their own, Peter springs forward, and anticipates them, and saith, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.' What then saith Christ? 'Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.'...Why then is this man blessed? Because he acknowledged Him very Son...What then saith Christ? 'Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.' 'Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;' all but saying, 'As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.'
Therefore He added this, 'And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. 'And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' And if not against it, much more not against Me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.' Then He mentions also another honor. 'And I also will give thee the keys of the heavens.' But what is this, 'And I also will give thee?' 'As the Father hath given thee to know Me, so I also will give thee.' And He said not, 'I will entreat the Father' (although the manifestation of his authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, 'I will give thee.' What dost thou give? tell me. 'The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.' How then is it not 'His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left,' when He saith, 'I will give thee?'
Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Sonof God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church incapable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than a rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as 'a brazen pillar, and as a wall;' but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world. I fain would inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven.

 

Hi Ps104_33,

I presented Peter 5:13, "She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings; and so does my son Mark."

as well as The Chronicle, composed about A.D. 303, noted that "It is said that Peter’s first epistle, in which he makes mention of Mark, was composed at Rome itself; and that he himself indicates this, referring to the city figuratively as Babylon."

and you responded with

Whether he is talking about a city on the Euphrates or Rome would be an inference on your part.

And, in your response, you carefully deleted the quote I gave from The Chronicle as if I never even posted it, as if it never even existed.

What's more important? Your overriding assertion that Peter was not in Rome or the evidence that I present? Are you simply going to ignore my posts and continue to reassert your previous assertions without answering the evidence I present? If so, I might as well say, "Have a nice time dialoguing with yourself".

"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..." (F.F. Bruce "NT History" {New York: Doubleday ,1971} p. 410).

You wrote, "Can you honestly say that all the fathers were unanimous in stating that Peter is the rock of Matt 16:18?"

How does this matter?

The Catechism of the Catholic Church itself states, "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.' On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church."

Conclusion: Ahah! You see! The Roman Catholic Church of today doesn't believe in Petrine Primacy because it speaks of Peter's faith as the rock upon which the Church is built!

You wrote, "Rome may have had certain priveledges due to the fact that it was the royal city and a world emoire and would help the other churches financially."

Are you imposing your categories (i.e. financial; political) upon the evidence at hand?

Pope Damasus I wrote in 382, "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’. 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).

You wrote, "I dont doubt that you could come up with some quotes from the fathers to support your argument, so could I for mine."

In doing so, you should state your source - it'll make the dialogue much easier. I'm using Stephen K. Ray's work, "Upon This Rock", which he wrote from much of the research he committed when he was still a non-Catholic:

http://www.catholicconvert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=webster/augustinewebster.html

Are you getting your quotations from William Webster? Stephen K. Ray has beautifully demonstrated that the arguments made by contemporary Protestant apologists against Petrine Primacy are wanting.

Ray writes, "Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above [concerning the quote that you just posted], Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified "this rock" with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated "this rock" with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, ‘Peter having been named after this rock ‘(Retractations 1:21)."

Regarding Ambrose, I can give you these:

"[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]?" (Ambrose, The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"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 is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Ambrose, Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

And Joe Gallegos has an excellent rebuttal to William Webster's misrepresentation of Chrysostom on his Coronum Apologetic Website, which was also written by Stephen K. Ray:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm

"[H]e [Peter] became a foundation of the Church"(Homily 3 on Matthew, NPNF1 X:19).

"[T]o exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him..."(Homily 54 on Matthew, NPNF1 X:334).

"Peter ... the foundation of the faith" (Hom. de decem mille talentis, Chapman 74).

"Peter, that the head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father ... this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey" (Almsgiving 3:4, Chapman 74).

God bless,

Carson

[ November 30, 2002, 01:51 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Carson,
Can you show any Scriptural evidence that the other 11 Apostles recognized Peter as their head?
If anything Scripture shows the Apostle Paul to be more in charge than Peter. In writing to the Roman Church he says: For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established; Rom 1:11

If Rome was in Peter's charge why would Paul expect that it would be by his instrumentality that this benifit would be conferred to the Roman assembly.

Also Paul seems to be strangely unaware of Peter's prerogatives in II Cor 1:28:
Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches
Did you see that? The care of all the churches.
If the care of all the churches was Peter's charge as Roman theory states, then Paul would be most unreasonable in complaining of the trouble he had incurred (II Cor 11:23-27) in meddling in another man's affairs.
Paul elsewhere limits Peter's authority to the "Apostleship of the circumcism", that is to say the Jewish Churches, (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles , and the evangelizing of the Gentiles had , by agreement of the chief three Apostles, been committed to himself and Barnabus.

You see Carson, the Scriptural evidence is overwhelmingly against you so you must resort to the uninspired and spurious writings of the fathers and a late and poor interpretation on Matthew 16:18.
Once the Scriptural evidence is presented your arguement falls apart like a cheap suit anf you start quoting the Cathecism and the fathers.

Your whole foundation rests on that one verse (Matt 16:18) and the Infalliblility of the Roman magesterium, and the fathers not in agreement concerning Peter as the head of the church.

( p.s. Yes I do get some of my info from the former Roman Catholic William Webster. But one of my main sources is Dr. Salmon and hisThe infallibility of the Church : lectures delivered in the Divinity School of the University of Dublin . I suggest that you read it.)