A Basic Case For Papal Primacy
A Historical Case for Being a Catholic Christian
My purpose in this reflection is not to present an exhaustive series of evidence that would compel anyone not under the Roman Creed to leave their Church for mine. Other authors have thoroughly researched volumes of evidence dating back centuries with in-depth analysis of scripture and the fathers (if you have an interest in this sort of thing, let me know, and I can direct you towards the right place). Instead, I hope to lay out the basic musings of a Catholic mind, someone who loves his tradition deeply and desires everyone should share in it. If you are non-Christian, this blog will not address issues of the existence of God or specific Christian apologetics. That said, this post will delve into Christianity’s historical development so you might find something interesting in it.
My family background is more Protestant than Catholic, the most religious people in my lineage were the Baptist preacher missionaries who settled Central Florida. My great-grandfather was intelligent, kind, and generous enough to put together a small volume on the history of our family. Within its pages, you see Protestants zealously devoted to the gospel, and even to some of the evangelical counsels (poverty, specifically). I do not know where their souls rest, but I hope they rest with God in heaven. Though I was raised Catholic, I became an agnostic and then attended a Protestant Church for the first semester of my time in college. I have not only a tremendous respect, but admiration for my Protestant brethren. They made me Christian and rescued me from the shifting tides of relativism.
However, I always had this intuition that the protestant Church was not apostolic, and the Catholic Church was. The Catholic Church maintains a list of Popes, one after another. We can point to who Peter’s successor was at every time in history (even if that was in dispute for a time in the case of certain antipopes). Protestantism makes no such claim about its history, and its heavy reliance on private interpretation of scripture creates unavoidable contradiction. Second, this primacy of private interpretation is completely a historical and unbiblical. Third, there is good historical and theological evidence pointing to the unique necessity of remaining in communion with the bishop of Rome.
The Issues of Ecclesiology
A primary issue with Protestantism lies in its ecclesiology (the study within Christian theology of what constitutes a Church). Some protestant churches claim to be the one true Church, established by Christ, but most hold to a general principle of sola scriptura. This means that scripture is the only infallible rule of faith. Practically, this means that one is bound, above all, to follow his/her interpretation of scripture above any Church.
When we examine the gospels, we can study the words of Christ to discover what the attributes of the Church he wanted to found are. Consider this text from the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus gives counsel on how to correct those who have sinned:
15 “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. 16 But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses. 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18 Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven.
As is plainly evidenced by this passage, Jesus has a concept of the Church that is more than just symbolic and metaphysical. He says the Church should resolve issues as the last authority. Furthermore, the commands of this authority are backed by God himself. Within Protestantism, there are great disagreements about doctrine. Luther thought Zwingli to be a heretic. But what Church did he have recourse to? One might respond “He had recourse to the bible of course!” This is true. But the bible itself points to another authority not greater than it, but to rule on practical cases of scriptural interpretation. Scripture does not tell us “When your brother sins against you, point out the passage contradicted in scripture, and if he disagrees with your interpretation, that is his valid interpretation, and you have yours.” Indeed, scripture itself points to a living institution made up of real people to rule on real events. Churches to judge are not only a practical necessity, but what scripture itself calls for. Scripture implies this judgement is binding, as with the authority given to the apostles to bind and loose.
The second major ecclesiological error of Protestantism has to do with the oneness of the Church. Again, we observe another scripture passage, this time from the Gospel of John:
20 “I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word, 21 that they may all be one; even as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, 23 I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.
The Church Jesus establishes is clearly intended to be one, not divided by doctrines of various issues. Certain protestants may recognize the lack of unity within their confessions and may hold that as long as one holds to a base level Christian creed, they are within the Church of Christ. The problem with this: the previous Gospel passage. As we found in Matthew’s Gospel, the Church is not only some sort of abstract entity we participate in, but a concrete institution meant to teach true doctrine and bring us to Christ. A unity of indifference is not a unity at all. The splintering off of various confessions and creeds after the Reformation was inevitable. Sacred Scripture is not written in plain language, easy to interpret and understand, and teach. Is it mere coincidence that Protestants (largely) accept the judgements of the Church of the first seven councils? Did they study sacred scripture and come to that conclusion on their own? Or was it historically the case that Christians felt bound to the judgements of the Church.
It may be argued, however, that scripture itself is sufficient and contains in it all truths necessary to salvation. This is true; however, scripture is not a simple thing to read and understand. At the heart of Christianity are great mysteries, and great precision is required to distinguish correct dogma from a condemnable error. Further, it is observably the case that even among those who claim to be “biblical” Christians, great diversity of opinion is observed. St. Vincent of Lerins, writing in the fifth century anticipated this objection.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason — because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Papal Primacy in the Early Church
Catholics derive our doctrines of the papacy primarily from scripture and the early readings of it. Specifically, the primacy of place given to St. Peter among the apostles. Matthew 16 reads:
3 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare′a Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli′jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 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. 18 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. 19 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.” 20 Then he strictly charged the disciples to tell no one that he was the Christ.
It should be observed, the name given to Peter by Jesus is cephas which is Greek for “rock.” Throughout the gospels, Peter is seen as speaking for the apostles, and in general as being their leader. Of course, after the Ascension of Christ, Peter went on to become the first bishop of Rome, where he lived until he was martyred there. After his death, other bishops of Rome inherited his role as head of the Church and source of unity. This is testified to by many of the church fathers.
The fact of Roman Primacy descending from Peter’s call from Christ in Matthew 16 can be observed throughout the Fathers. The examples are plenty, but here are a few. St. Irenaeus, wrote of the Roman Church in 189:
“Because of [the Roman Church’s] superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.”
St. Optatus, a bishop venerated in both East and West firmly stated that those who separate themselves from the bishop of Rome do indeed sin.
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner
Pope St. Clement, who knew the apostles, wrote to Church of Corinth, demanding “obedience” and claiming to speak through the Holy Spirit. Some early Christians in the east treated this letter as a “sacred text.” St. Gregory the Great, praised by John Calvin as a true Christian, “last good Pope”, and a sort of proto-Protestant, wrote
“For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge?”
Clearly, this Pope was of the opinion that his authority was universal, and not merely local. It is significant that he is venerated as a saint in Orthodoxy and reverenced in Protestant circles.
There are countless more examples, deep in detail, and for a complete reading of the history of papal primacy, I would consult Fr. Luke Rivington’s great work The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. This work takes you through the first several centuries of Christian history, with thorough citations, great detail. Erik Ybarra’s book on the papacy, which I am currently going through, also looks quite good. If you are Catholic, I hope you learned something about the history of the papacy and patristic teaching on the matter. If you are not, I hope this blog post encouraged you to perhaps reexamine some of the priors you possessed regarding the history of Christianity.
I’m aware I already said this, but please check out The Primitive Church and the See of Peter. For anyone interested in this subject matter, I cannot recommend it highly enough.