|
 St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early
Church
based on my "unfinished" refutation
of James G. McCarthy's book The Gospel According to Rome
CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
553. Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: 'I will
give you 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' [Matt 16:19]. The 'power of the keys' designates
authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the
Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: 'Feed my
sheep' [John 21:15-17; cf. 10:11]. The power to 'bind and loose'
connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal
judgments, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus
entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the
apostles [cf. Matt 18:18] and in particular through the ministry of
Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the
kingdom.
816. "The sole Church of
Christ [is that] which our Savior, after his Resurrection, entrusted to
Peter's pastoral care, commissioning him and the other apostles to
extend and rule it...This Church, constituted and organized as a society
in the present world, subsists in (subsistit in) the Catholic
Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the bishops
in communion with him" [Vatican II LG 8].
861. "In order that the
mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the
apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their
immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the
work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which
the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They
accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise
on their death other proven men should take over their ministry" [LG
20; cf. Acts 20:28; St. Clement of Rome, Ad Cor 42,44].
881. The Lord made Simon alone,
whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the
keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock [Cf.
Mt 16:18-19; Jn 21:15-17]. "The office of binding and loosing which
was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united
to its head" [LG 22; cf. Mt 18:18; Jn 20:21-23]. This pastoral
office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very
foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the
Pope.
882. The Pope, Bishop of Rome and
Peter's successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and
foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of
the faithful." "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office
as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full,
supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can
always exercise unhindered."
883. "The college or body of
bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter's
successor, as its head." As such, this college has "supreme
and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be
exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff" [cf. Vatican
II, LG 22, 23].
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON "ROCK" OF MATTHEW 16:18
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Although it is true that petros and petra can
mean 'stone' and 'rock' respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction
is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in
this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in
both clauses ('you are kepha' and 'on this kepha'),
since the word was used both for a name and for a 'rock.' The Peshitta
(written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no
distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the
distinction between petros and petra simply because it
is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra
could not very well serve as a masculine name." (Carson, The
Expositor's Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page
368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
"The word Peter petros, meaning 'rock,' (Gk 4377) is
masculine, and in Jesus' follow-up statement he uses the feminine word
petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have
attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds
his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against
extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether
many would have taken 'rock' to be anything or anyone other than
Peter." (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan,
1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --
"The name Peter means 'Rock', and Jesus played on this
meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God.
His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys
symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the
household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to
declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven
(to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic
writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for
'rock' (petra) differs from the name Petros, the 'rock'
referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made
of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa
would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact
that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender,
and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter's
name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense
outlined above." (France, New Bible Commentary with
consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press,
1994], page 925, 926)
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel's Greek standard Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament --
"The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as
well suggests a material identity between petra and petros,
the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the
meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured
Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence
the formal and material identity between petra and petros:
petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock
of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the
house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is
the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of
admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The
idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is
quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the
story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather,
the parallelism of 'thou art Rock' and 'on this rock I will build'
shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is
thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given
the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not
persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia.
To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant
attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Cullmann,
article on "Rock" (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by
Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New
Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107,
108)
Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) --
"It is well known that the Greek word (petra)
translated 'rock' here is different from the proper name Peter. The
slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The
most likely explanation for the change from petros ('Peter') to
petra is that petra was the normal word for 'rock.'
Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man's
name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros.
The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it
literally meant 'stone.' Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra
when He turned from Peter's name to what it meant for the Church.
There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros
to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but
of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words 'on this
rock [petra]' indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation
that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him,
Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future
church." (Ridderbos, Bible Student's Commentary: Matthew
[Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page
35-36)
Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) --
"Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the
appropriateness of Simon's nickname 'Peter' (Petros=rock). This
is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42
[wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most
famous. Jesus' declaration, 'You are Peter,' parallels Peter's
confession, 'You are the Christ,' as if to say, 'Since you can tell me
who I am, I will tell you who you are.' The expression 'this rock'
almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his
name, just as the words following 'the Christ' in v. 16 applied to
Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter's name (Petros)
and the word 'rock' (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the
rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this
identification." (Blomberg, The New American Commentary:
Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in
Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The
Anchor Bible series) --
"Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an
appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or
Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or
from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be
the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build).
Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses
the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the
background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional
interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the
faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent
position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian
community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2;
14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations
does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had
Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less
consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff)." (Albright/Mann, The Anchor
Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) --
"'You are Peter,' Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter's 'You
are the Christ' (16:16). He then plays on Simon's nickname, 'Peter,'
which is roughly the English 'Rocky': Peter is 'rocky,' and on this
rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have
sometimes argued that Peter's name in Greek (petros) differs
from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus'
day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic
form of Peter's nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas)
means simply 'rock.' Further, Jesus does not say, 'You are Peter, but
on this rock I will build my church'....the copulative kai
almost always means 'and'.... Jesus' teaching is the ultimate
foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter
functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in
Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role
arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the 'rock' because he
is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context
(16:15-16)...." (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of
Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"The play on words -- 'Peter', this 'rock' -- requires a
change in Greek from petros (properly, 'stone') to petra.
In Aramaic, the two words would be identical -- Kepha the name
given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9),
and kepha, 'rock'. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the
'rock' from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God
finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world..."
(Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row,
1981], page 355)
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"The 'rock' is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this
interpretation does the pun make sense." (Schweizer, The
Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page
341)
Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) --
"...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community
could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the
rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The
arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase 'on this
rock' : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter's confession? But the text
is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his
new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to
provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of
God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are
God's people, the church...as the church they represent God's
sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine
authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not
only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the
community shape and direction." (Jones, The Gospel of
Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ) --
"16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on
which Jesus builds the new community. The name 'Peter' means 'stone'
or 'rock' (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There
are no documented instances of anyone's ever being named 'rock' in
Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should
render the word 'stone' or 'rock,' not 'Peter,' which gives the false
impression that the word represented a common name and causes the
contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: 'You are
Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.' Peter is here pictured
as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf.
Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to
Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God,
had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at
the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name
'rock' to signify this." (The New Interpreter's Bible
[Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)
Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra
both mean 'rock,' it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play
on words: 'Your name is "Rock," and on this "rock"
I will build my church.' Jesus' meaning is plain: Peter is the rock,
the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus
spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for 'Peter'
and 'rock' are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible
interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to
Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new
people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary
leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the
new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the 'rock,' corresponding to
Abraham of old, who was 'the rock from which you were hewn' (Isa.
51:1)." (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox
Press, 1997], page 185, 186)
Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) --
"The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the
church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter.
If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter's faith, or of
the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that
the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter
himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents
the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At
least four considerations support this view...." (Gardner, Believers
Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)
CONCLUSION ON "ROCK" OF MATTHEW 16:18
(A) Peter is the Rock, the foundation stone of Jesus' Church,
the Church would be built on Peter personally;
(B) Peter's name means Rock (petros or petra in
Greek, Kepha or Cephas in Aramaic);
(C) The slight distinction in meaning for the Greek words for
Rock (petros, petra) was largely confined to poetry before the
time of Jesus and therefore has no special importance;
(D) The Greek words for Rock (petros, petra) by Jesus'
day were interchangeable in meaning;
(E) The underlying Aramaic Kepha-kepha of Jesus' words
makes the Rock-rock identification certain;
(F) The Greek word petra, being a feminine noun, could
not be used for a man's name, so Petros was used;
(G) Only because of past "Protestant bias" was the
Peter is Rock identification denied;
(H) The pun or play on words makes sense only if Peter is the
Rock;
(I) Jesus says "and on this rock" not
"but on this rock" -- the referent is therefore
Peter personally;
(J) Verse 19 and the immediate context (singular
"you") shows Peter is the Rock of verse 18;
(K) Peter's revelation and confession of Jesus as the Christ
parallels Jesus' declaration and identification of Peter as the Rock;
(L) Peter is paralleled to Abraham who also had his name
changed, was a Father to God's people, and was called the Rock (Isaiah
51:1-2; cf. Gen 17:5ff).
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON "KEYS" OF MATTHEW 16:19
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ), commenting on the
"keys of the kingdom of heaven," "binding" and
"loosing" from Matthew 16:19 --
"The 'kingdom of heaven' is represented by authoritative
teaching, the promulgation of authoritative Halakha that lets heaven's
power rule in earthly things...Peter's role as holder of the keys is
fulfilled now, on earth, as chief teacher of the church....The keeper
of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and
teacher (cf. Isa 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here).
The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for
authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the
Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted
and what is not permitted. Jesus, who has taught with authority (7:29)
and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8), here gives the
primary disciple the authority to teach in his name -- to make
authoritative decisions pertaining to Christian life as he applies the
teaching of Jesus to concrete situations in the life of the
church." (Boring, page 346)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"The 'keys' are probably not to be understood as
entrance keys, as if to suggest that Peter is authorized to
admit or to refuse admission, but rather to the bundle of keys
carried by the chief steward, for the opening of rooms and
storechambers within the house -- symbols of responsibilities to be
exercised within the house of God (cf. Mt 24:45, etc.). 'Bind' and
'loose" are technical terms of the rabbinic vocabulary, denoting
the authoritative declaration that an action or course of conduct is
permitted or forbidden by the Law of Moses." (Beare, page
355-356)
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) --
"In Jewish interpretation, the key of David refers to the
teachers of the Law (exiled in Babylon); according to Matthew 23:13,
the 'keys of the Kingdom of heaven' are in the hands of the teachers
of the Law. A contrast is here drawn between them and Peter. He is
thus not the gatekeeper of heaven, but the steward of the
Kingdom of heaven upon earth. His function is described in
more detail as 'binding and loosing' ....the saying must from the very
outset have referred to an authority like that of the teachers of the
Law. In this context, 'binding" and 'loosing' refer to the
magisterium to declare a commandment binding or not binding....For
Matthew, however, there is only one correct interpretation of the Law,
that of Jesus. This is accessible to the community through the
tradition of Peter...Probably we are dealing here mostly with teaching
authority, and always with the understanding that God must ratify what
Petrine tradition declares permitted or forbidden in the
community." (Schweizer, page 343)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) --
"The terms [binding and loosing] thus refer to a teaching
function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements
[i.e. relative to laws not written down in the Jewish Scriptures but
based on an oral interpretation of them] which are to be 'binding' on
the people of God. In that case Peter's 'power of the keys' declared
in [Matthew] 16:19 is not so much that of the doorkeeper...
but that of the steward (as in Is. 22:22, generally
regarded as the Old Testament background to the metaphor of keys
here), whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the
household." (R.T. France, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page
54)
Joachim Jeremias in an extended passage from Kittel's Greek
standard TDNT --
"...the key of David is now (3:7) the key which Christ has in
His hands as the promised shoot of David. This is the key to God's
eternal palace. The meaning of the description is that Christ has unlimited
sovereignty over the future world. He alone controls grace and
judgment. He decides irrevocably whether a man will have access to the
salvation of the last age or whether it will be witheld from
him...Materially, then, the keys of the kingdom of God are not
different from the key of David...This is confirmed by the
fact that in Mt. 16:19, as in Rev. 3:7, Jesus is the One who controls
them. But in what sense is the power of the keys given to Peter?
....the handing over of the keys is not just future. It is regarded as
taking place now... There are numerous instances to show that in
biblical and later Jewish usage handing over the keys implies full
authorisation. He who has the keys has full authority.
Thus, when Eliakim is given the keys of the palace he is appointed the
royal steward (Is. 22:22, cf. 15). When Jesus is said to hold the keys
of death and Hades (Rev. 1:18) or the key of David (3:7), this means
that He is, not the doorkeeper, but the Lord of the world of the dead
and the palace of God...Hence handing over the keys implies
appointment to full authority. He who has the keys has
on the one side control, e.g., over the council chamber or treasury,
cf. Mt. 13:52, and on the other the power to allow or forbid entry,
cf. Rev. 3:7...Mt. 23:13 leads us a step further. This passage is
particularly important for an understanding of Mt. 16:19 because it is
the only one in the NT which presupposes an image not found elsewhere,
namely, that of the keys of the kingdom (royal dominion) of God...Mt.
23:13 shows us that the scribes of the time of Jesus claimed to
possess the power of the keys in respect of this kingdom...They
exercised this by declaring the will of God in Holy Scripture in the
form of preaching, teaching and judging. Thereby they opened up for
the congregation a way into this kingdom...by acting as spiritual
leaders of the congregation....As Lord of the Messianic community He
thus transferred the keys of God's royal dominion, i.e. the full
authority of proclamation, to Peter...In Rabb. lit. binding
and loosing are almost always used in respect of halakhic
decisions...The scribe binds (declares to be forbidden) and looses
(declares to be permitted)...In Mt. 16:19, then, we are to regard the
authority to bind and to loose as judicial. It is the
authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and to promise
forgiveness to believers." (Jeremias from Kittel/Bromiley, Theological
Dictionary of the New Testament, volume 3, page 748-751)
The older The Interpreter's Bible --
"19. The keys of the kingdom would be committed
to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary
authority. In Isa. 22:22 the key of the house of David is
promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation
(I Cor. 3:11), and in Rev. 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David
and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage Peter is made the
foundation (cf. Eph. 2:20, where the Christian apostles and prophets
are the foundation and Christ is the cornerstone) and holds the keys.
Post-Apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the
apostles the prerogatives of Jesus (cf. 10:40). In rabbinical language
to bind and to loose is to declare certain
actions forbidden or permitted [a Jewish source Terumoth 5:4 is
quoted]...Thus Peter's decisions regarding the O.T. law (e.g., in Acts
10:44-48) will be ratified in heaven." (George Arthur Buttrick,
et al The Interpreter's Bible [Abingdon Press, 1951],
volume 7, page 453)
Willoughby C. Allen, in a still older commentary that
interprets the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 as the "revealed
truth" of the Messiahship of Christ, nevertheless writes in his The
International Critical Commentary --
"The figure of the gates of Hades suggests the metaphor of the
keys. There were keys of Hades, Rev 1:18; cf. 9:1; 20:1. The
apocalyptic writer describes the risen Christ as having the keys of
Hades, i.e. having power over it, power to enter it, and power to
release from it, or to imprison in it. In the same way, 'the kingdom
of the heavens' can be likened to a citadel with barred gates. He who
held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to
exclude. In Rev 3:7 this power is held by Christ Himself [quotes Rev
3:7]...The words are modelled on Is 22:22, and express supreme
authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which
can be contested by none...It would, therefore, be not unexpected if
we found the Messiah or Son of Man described as having the keys of the
kingdom of the heavens. This would imply that He was supreme
within it. But it is surprising to find this power delegated to S.
Peter...To S. Peter were to be given the keys of the kingdom.
The kingdom is here, as elsewhere in this Gospel, the kingdom to be
inaugurated when the Son of Man came upon the clouds of heaven. If S.
Peter was to hold supreme authority within it, the other
apostles were also to have places of rank...To 'bind' and to 'loose'
in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to 'forbid' and 'allow,' to
'declare forbidden' and to 'declare allowed'...The terms, therefore,
describe an authority of a legal nature. If he who has the keys has
authority of an administrative nature, he who binds and looses
exercises authority of a legislative character....Further, the
position of v. 18, with its description of the Church as a fortress
impregnable against the attacks of evil (the gates of Hades), suggest
irresistibly that 'the keys of the kingdom' mean more than power
to open merely, and imply rather authority within the kingdom.
And this is confirmed by the 'binding' and 'loosing' which immediately
follow...What were the keys thus given? Even if we identify the
kingdom with the Church, it is not entirely satisfactory to
suppose that the Lord simply foretold that S. Peter was to take a
prominent part in the work of opening the door of faith to the
Gentiles. His share in that work, though a great, was not an
exclusive one....The motive must have been to emphasise the
prominence of S. Peter in the Christan body as foretold and sanctioned
by Christ Himself...They [the apostles] had left all to follow
Christ; but when He sat on the throne of His glory they would sit on
twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel, 19:18. And
amongst them Peter was pre-eminent. He was protos, 10:2."
(Allen, The International Critical Commentary [orig
1909, 1985], page 176ff)
Raymond Brown and John Reumann suggest other possible
meanings --
"What else might this broader power of the keys include? It
might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline;
post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion
from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge;
legislative powers; and the power of governing." (Brown, Reumann,
et al Peter in the New Testament, page 97)
CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF MATTHEW 16:19
(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching,
and Peter's role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as
Christ's chief teacher;
(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of
Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and
teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);
(C) The authority of the keys is likened to that of the
teachers of the Law in Jesus' day, and the correct interpretation of the
Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church)
through the tradition of Peter;
(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are
not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7),
since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;
(E) Therefore, the keys (or "key" singular)
represent FULL authorization, FULL
authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME
authority;
(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be
understood as merely entrance keys (or "opening the door of
faith" to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried
by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household
(cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ's universal Church
(cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);
(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the
"gatekeeper of heaven" or "doorkeeper" but is
therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on
earth;
(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or
penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist,
legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;
(I) The language of "binding" and
"loosing" is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching
or a teaching function (or "Halakhic" pronouncements),
denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or
forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to
pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;
(J) The "binding" and "loosing" refers to
the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which
Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a
commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed,
and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on
earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).
BIBLE COMMENTARY ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22:22
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann are quite certain
when they comment on Matthew 16:19 --
"Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys
are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux [Ancient Israel,
tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same
authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the
chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is
described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah's
position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described
as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]....It is of considerable
importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of
the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the
symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those
instances to a wider circle....The role of Peter as steward of the
Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative
authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the 'keys.'
The clauses 'on earth,' 'in heaven', have reference to the permanent
character of the steward's work." (Albright/Mann, The
Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)
The Evangelical New Bible Commentary states on Isaiah
22 --
"Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna, over whom he
seems to have been promoted when they reappear in 36:3...Godward he is
called my servant (20)...manward he will be a father to
his community (21)...The key...of David (22) comes in this
context of accountability. A key was a substantial object, tucked in
the girdle or slung over the shoulder; but the opening words of v.
22...emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it, to be
used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' means the
power to make decisions which no one under the king could override.
This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and
to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).... Ultimate authority, however, is
claimed, in these terms, for Christ himself (cf. Rev 3:7-8)." (NBC
page 647)
The Evangelical NIV Study Bible notes on Isaiah 22 --
on verse 15: "...in charge of the palace. A
position second only to the king..."; on verse 22: "...key
to the house of David. The authority delegated to him by the king, who
belongs to David's dynasty -- perhaps controlling entrance into the
royal palace. Cf. the 'keys of the kingdom' given to Peter (Mt 16:19)
."
The Lutheran/Catholic ecumenical study Peter in the New
Testament comments --
"One suggestion is that the verse [Matt 16:19] is evocative of
Isa 22:15-25 where Shebna, prime minister of King Hezekiah of Judah,
is deposed and replaced by Eliakim on whose shoulder God places 'the
key of David; he shall open...and he shall shut.' The power of the key
of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the
prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace,
which involves access to the king. If this were the background of
Matthew's 'keys of the kingdom,' then Peter might be being portrayed
as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to
proclaim, and the power of binding and loosing would be a
specification of the broader power of allowing or refusing entrance
into the kingdom....The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,'
was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term
borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace
functionary." (Brown, Reumann, et al page 96-97, and footnote
referring to Roland DeVaux Ancient Israel)
The Brethren/Mennonite commentary by Richard B. Gardner --
"The image of the keys likely comes from an oracle in Isaiah,
which speaks of the installation of a new majordomo or steward in
Hezekiah's palace." (Gardner, page 248)
Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce comments --
"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a
royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or
majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there
they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700
B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal
palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim
....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to
build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The
Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as
cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)
Catholic Evangelical convert and Bible teacher Stephen Ray --
"Jesus is intentionally drawing attention to
the context of Isaiah's prophecy -- a new steward is being placed over
the kingdom of Judah -- as the backdrop for his current appointment of
Peter as steward over his kingdom. Jesus ascends the throne of
David as the heir and successor of the kings of Israel and Judah, and
he too, according to custom and legal precedent, appoints a royal
steward over his kingdom. Notice the words used to describe the
steward: he has an 'office'; he is 'over the household [vizier]';
'authority' is committed into his hand; he shall be a 'father' to the
people of God; he is given the 'keys' of authority; he has the
unquestioned supremacy to open and shut so that no one can oppose him;
he is fastened firmly as a peg; he will 'become a throne of honor to
his father's house'; and on him will hang the weight of everything in
the king's house....The parallels between Peter and Eliakim are
striking. The physical kingdom of Israel has been superseded by the
spiritual kingdom of God. The office of steward in the old economy is
now superseded by the Petrine office with the delegation and handing
on of the keys. The office of steward was successive, and so is the
Petrine office in the new kingdom." (Stephen K. Ray, Upon
This Rock [Ignatius Press, 1999] from "Appendix B: An Old Testament Basis for
the Primacy and Succession of St. Peter," page 273-4)
CONCLUSION ON "KEYS" OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO
MATTHEW 16
Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had
successors. He is described as being "over the
household" and "in charge of the palace" (Isa
22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his
authority "what he shall open, no one shall shut...and what he
shall shut, no one shall open" (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7).
The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only
be called a supreme or plenary authority
beside that of the King. This is the language of the "keys,"
"binding," and "loosing" that Jesus was using in
Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the "keys" just as the prime
minister had the "key to the house of David" (Isa 22:22). And
this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 -- the
prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa
22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward
died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his
place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward
("manager" NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in
charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42;
16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).
Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include
major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator)
had the "keys" and the other ministers did not, the Lord made
Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible
head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the "keys of the
kingdom" with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19.
The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is
the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant
scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the
full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did
have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church
of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and
authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the "Chair
[or See] of Peter" or simply "the Apostolic See"). The historical evidence for the unique primacy of Peter and the
Bishop of Rome will be discussed next.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY ON ST. PETER AND THE "PRIMACY OF
ROME"
From Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly The Oxford Dictionary of
Popes (1986) under Peter, St, Apostle (page 5-6)
"The papacy, through successive popes and councils, has
always traced its origins and title-deeds to the unique commission
reported to have been given by Jesus Christ to Peter, the chief of his
Apostles, later to be martyred when organizing the earliest
group of Christians at Rome....According to Matt
16:13-20, when Jesus asked the disciples whom they took him to be,
Simon answered for them all that he was the Messiah, the Son of the
living God; in reply Jesus pronounced him blessed because of this
inspired insight, bestowed on him the Aramaic name Cephas (= 'rock'),
rendered Peter in Greek, and declared that he would build his
indestructible church on 'this rock', and would give him 'the keys of
the kingdom of heaven' and the powers of 'binding and loosing' ....
"[In the first half of Acts]...Peter was the undisputed
leader of the youthful church. It was he who presided over the
choice of a successor to Judas (1:15-26), who explained to the crowd
the meaning of Pentecost (2:14-40), who healed the lame beggar at the
Temple (3:1-10), who pronounced sentence on Ananias and Sapphira
(5:1-11), and who opened the church to Gentiles by having Cornelius
baptized without undergoing circumcision (10:9-48). He was to the fore
in preaching, defending the new movement, working miracles of healing,
and visiting newly established Christian communities...
"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in
Rome. Although the NT appears silent about such a stay, it is
supported by 1 Peter 5:13, where 'Babylon' is a code-name for Rome,
and by the strong case for linking the Gospel of Mark, who as Peter's
companion (1 Pet 5:13) is said to have derived its substance from him,
with Rome. To early writers like Clement of Rome (c. 95), Ignatius of
Antioch (c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge
that he worked and died in Rome."
Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans,
1910) --
"Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a
resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction
what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced
in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world;
Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal
controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity
to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian,
and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular
pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by
heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion,
Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome
at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke
and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far
beyond their immediate diocese." (Schaff, volume 2, page 157)
On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from
St. Peter, Schaff states --
"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the
Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all
ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as
far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to
an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and
exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and
authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the
more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in
Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, volume
2, page 158)
The succession list of bishops in the apostolic see of
Rome of the first two centuries as provided by Schaff (volume 2, page
166) is --
- St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
- St. Linus (67-76)
- St. Anacletus (76-88)
- St. Clement I (88-97)
- St. Evaristus (97-105)
- St. Alexander I (105-115)
- St. Sixtus I (115-125)
- St. Telesphorus (125-136)
- St. Hyginus (136-140)
- St. Pius I (140-155)
- St. Anicetus (155-166)
- St. Soter (166-175)
- St. Eleutherius (175-189)
- St. Victor I (189-199)
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of
Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness,
integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above
every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch,
Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)
Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome just as I have them
above, along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives
this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time
(Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to
his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History
of the Church by Eusebius.
Catholic historian Philip Hughes writes --
"Ever since the popes were first articulate about the General
Council, they have claimed the right to control its action and to give
or withhold an approbation of its decisions which stamps them as the
authentic teaching of the Church of Christ. Only through their
summoning it, or through their consenting to take their place at it
(whether personally or by legates sent in their name), or by their
subsequent acceptance of the council, does the assembly of bishops
become a General Council. No member of the Church has ever proposed
that a General Council shall be summoned and the pope be left out, nor
that the pope should take any other position at the General Council
but as its president...in no council has it been moved that the Bishop
of X be promoted to the place of the Bishop of Rome, or that the
bishop of Rome's views be disregarded and held of no more account than
those of the bishop of any other major see...the general shape is ever
discernible of a Roman Primacy universally recognized, and submitted
to, albeit (at times) unwillingly -- recognized and submitted to
because, so the bishops believed, it was set up by God himself."
(Hughes, The Church in Crisis: A History of the General Councils,
page 5-6)
From the old Catholic Encyclopedia (1913) --
"History bears complete testimony that from the very earliest
times the Roman See has ever claimed the supreme headship, and that
that headship has been freely acknowledged by the universal Church. We
shall here confine ourselves to the consideration of the evidence
afforded by the first three centuries. The first witness is St.
Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus,
succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes....The tone of
authority [in his Epistle to the Corinthians] which inspires the
latter appears so clearly that [Protestant scholar J.B.] Lightfoot did
not hesitate to speak of it as 'the first step towards papal
domination' ...Thus, at the very commencement of church history,
before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a
Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the
affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a
decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact
admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the
Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church
recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head....The
limits of the present article prevent us from carrying the historical
argument further than the year 300. Nor is it in fact necessary to do
so. From the beginning of the fourth century the supremacy of Rome is
writ large upon the page of history. It is only in regard to the first
age of the Church that any question can arise. But the facts we have
recounted are entirely sufficient to prove to any unprejudiced mind
that the supremacy was exercised and acknowledged from the days of the
Apostles." (volume 12, article "Pope" page 263, 264)
From the New Catholic Encyclopedia (1967) --
"That in the primitive Christian period the Roman Church was
credited with an authority superior to that of any other patriarchal
see, can be gathered from the letter written by Pope Clement I (c. 92)
to the Corinthians in which he made important statements concerning
the nature of the Church and laid down principles that in embryonic
form contains maxims of government. That in view of its location, the
Roman Church was in actual fact credited with preeminence over other
sees is a matter of history....Numerous testimonies could be cited to
prove the factual preeminence of the Roman Church." (volume 10,
article "Papacy" page 952)
To be fair, the NCE goes on to state that in the
earliest centuries there was "no doctrinal elaboration of the
jurisdictional position of the Roman Church" and this too is
"a matter of history." However, the same could be said of the
Holy Trinity and the Person of Christ. There was no formal doctrinal
elaboration on these (whether the Papacy, the Trinity, or Christology)
until the fourth century (e.g. the Council of Nicaea and thereafter).
From there the Catholic doctrines (on the Papacy, the Trinity,
Christology, Mariology, the sacraments, even the 27-book canon of the
New Testament) begin to be formally defined, elaborated upon, and
developed in the creed, practice and life of the Church and her liturgy.
Steve Ray writes on the development of doctrine in the early Catholic
Church --
"And so the Church developed as she grew but did not change
her organic nature or her Christ-established essence. The growth did
not contradict what had gone before but rather complemented it in an
essential unity with the Church's past stages of development. Under
the pressure of increasing size, theological deviations, and
persecution in the first century, leadership solidified and became
layered, as is essential for the growth of any organization. This
process was first developed and set in motion during the life of the
apostles. It was a process of maturation that was fundamental to the
organism and vital to its growth. The result of that growth in our age
is still known as the Catholic Church and is essentially the same as
the acorn planted two thousand years ago. The body is now in adulthood
and bears the same marks as it did in the first century: oneness,
holiness, catholicity, and apostolicity -- in short, the Catholic
Church. The development of the Church and of doctrine and leadership
is simply part of the expected growth of the organic structure."
(Upon This Rock [Ignatius Press, 1999], page 118)
Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early
Christian Doctrines sums up how unanimous the Church was in the
patristic period, particularly the fourth and fifth centuries where the
documentary evidence becomes overwhelming for the primacy and authority
of the Papacy --
"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a
special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without
question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the
patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the
leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and
freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and
Chalcedon (451). We even find the fifth-century historians Socrates
and Sozomen concluding...that it was unconstitutional for synods to be
held without the Roman pontiff being invited or for decisions to be
taken without his concurrence. At the outbreak of the Christological
controversy, it will be remembered, both Nestorius and Cyril hastened
to bring their cases to Rome, the latter declaring that the ancient
custom of the churches constrained him to communicate matters of such
weight to the Pope and to seek his advice before acting. In one of his
sermons he goes so far as to salute Celestine as 'the archbishop of
the whole world' .....It goes without saying that Augustine [c. 354 -
430 AD] identifies the Church with the universal Catholic Church of
his day, with its hierarchy and sacraments, and with its centre at
Rome....By the middle of the fifth century the Roman church had
established, de jure as well as de facto, a position of
primacy in the West, and the papal claims to supremacy over all
bishops of Christendom had been formulated in precise terms....The
student tracing the history of the times, particularly of the Arian,
Donatist, Pelagian and Christological controversies, cannot fail to be
impressed by the skill and persistence with which the Holy See [of
Rome] was continually advancing and consolidating its claims. Since
its occupant was accepted as the successor of St. Peter, and prince of
the apostles, it was easy to draw the inference that the unique
authority which Rome in fact enjoyed, and which the popes saw
concentrated in their persons and their office, was no more than the
fulfilment of the divine plan." (Kelly, pages 406, 407, 413, 417)
The Anglican study The See of Peter by James T.
Shotwell/Louise Ropes Loomis (NY: Octagon Books, 1965) on the early
evidence for the primacy of Rome --
"Unquestionably, the Roman church very early developed
something like a sense of obligation to the oppressed all over
Christendom....Consequently there was but one focus of authority. By
the year 252, there seem to have been one hundred bishops in central
and southern Italy but outside Rome there was nothing to set one
bishop above another. All were on a level together, citizens of Italy,
accustomed to look to Rome for direction in every detail of public
life. The Roman bishop had the right not only to ordain but even, on
occasion, to select bishops for Italian churches....To Christians of
the Occident, the Roman church was the sole, direct link with the age
of the New Testament and its bishop was the one prelate in their part
of the world in whose voice they discerned echoes of the apostles'
speech. The Roman bishop spoke always as the guardian of an
authoritative tradition, second to none. Even when the eastern
churches insisted that their traditions were older and quite as
sacred, if not more so, the voice in the West, unaccustomed to rivalry
at home, spoke on regardless of protest or denunciation at a
distance....
"The theory of [Pope] Stephen, that kindled his contemporaries
to such utter exasperation, was rather that the Church was a monarchy,
a congeries indeed of bishoprics but all of them subject to the
superior authority of the one bishop who sat upon the throne of the
prince of the apostles [Peter]. The Roman See, as distinct from the
Roman church, was and sought to be predominant, not for its situation
or other wordly advantes, not even for its treasure of doctrine,
bequeathed by its two founders, but, primarily and fundamentally,
because its bishop was heir in his own person to the unique
prerogative conferred upon Peter. To Peter had been granted a primacy
among the apostles, so to the Roman bishop was assigned a leadership
over the bishops....The Arians, who had ousted Athanasius from
Alexandria, offered to submit the case to [Pope] Julius for his
judgment. Athanasius himself and other orthodox refugees from eastern
sees went directly to Rome as to a court of appeal...
"At the general Council of Sardica [343 AD]...the orthodox
Easterners and Westerners stayed behind to issue another, in which
they claimed for the Roman bishop an appellate jurisdiction over all
the Church in honor of 'the memory of Peter, the apostle.'...[by the
time of Pope Damasus]...there can be no doubt that large numbers of
eastern Christians had by this time become convinced of the genuine
superiority of the Roman See in faith and religious insight. The
eastern emperor Theodosius published an edict requiring his subjects
to accept the doctrine which Peter had committed to the Romans....it
was the trustworthy authority of Peter to which the East paid homage
in the fourth century, not the wealth nor the power of Rome....From
the time when Eleutherus was asked to condemn the Montanists, through
the period when Callistus, Stephen and Dionysius revised and
interpreted dogma, down to the days when the Nicene creed was defended
on the ground of its Roman origin and Liberius and Damasus endorsed or
rejected eastern declarations of faith according as they did or did
not measure up to their own standards, the Roman bishops asserted
their right to speak for the tradition of Peter." (Shotwell/Loomis,
page 217-228)
The Orthodox study The Primacy of Peter (St.
Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1992) by John
Meyendorff states on St. Clement of Rome and the ante-Nicene period
(before 325 AD) --
"Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome
took over the position of 'church-with-priority' at the end of the
first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into
the firmament of history in its brightest splendor...Even as early as
the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the
churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the
Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)....we have
a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the
Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this
period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome...We know that Clement
was 'president' of the Roman Church...." (Afanassieff from
Meyendorff, page 124)
"The epistle [Clement of Rome to the Corinthians] is couched
in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same
time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the
decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth's eyes, that must attach to
its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the
end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority,
in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the
Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to
justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call
the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about
the grounds of this priority....Apparently Rome had no doubt that its
priority would be accepted without argument." (Afanassieff from
Meyendorff, page 125-126)
"Rome's vocation [in the "pre-Nicene period"]
consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues
by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put
before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they
wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church.
They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the
Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from
Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There
are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...." (Afanassieff
from Meyendorff, page 128f, 133)
"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of
local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence
possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the
apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of
Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,'
according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition
of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by
Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can
we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils
unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of
ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that
one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and
significance." (Schmemann from Meyendorff, page 163-164)
Kenneth Whitehead asks in his wonderful apologetics book One,
Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic: The Early Church was the Catholic Church
(Ignatius Press, 2000) --
"We must ask: What Church existing today descends in an
unbroken line from the apostles of Jesus Christ (and possesses the
other essential marks of the true Church of which the Creed speaks)?
Further, what Church existing today is headed by a single, recognized,
designated leader under the headship of Peter? To ask these questions
is to answer them. Any entity claiming to be the Church of Christ -- his
body! -- must demonstrate its apostolicity, its organic link with the
original apostles, on whom Christ manifestly established his Church.
Nothing less can qualify as the apostolic Church that Jesus
founded." (Whitehead, page 36)
see also St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the
Holy See ("Rome has spoken; the case is closed")
St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter
END
P
|
|