The Primacy of Peter

The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred upon St Peter the first place of honour and jurisdiction in the governance of His entire Church, and that the same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the Popes, or Bishops of Rome, as the successors of St Peter. Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians—both among the clergy and the laity—must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter governs in the person of his successor.

Before presenting any direct proofs on this matter, I may first observe that, under the Old Law, the High Priest appointed by Almighty God held an office analogous to that of the Pope under the New Law. In the Jewish Church there were Priests and Levites ordained to minister at the altar; and there was also a supreme ecclesiastical tribunal, with the High Priest at its head.

All matters of religious controversy were referred to this tribunal, and ultimately to the High Priest, whose decision was enforced under penalty of death:

“If a judicial decision is too difficult for you to make between one kind of bloodshed and another, one kind of legal right and another, or one kind of assault and another—any such matters of dispute in your towns—then you shall immediately go up to the place that the Lord your God will choose, where you shall consult with the levitical priests and the judge who is in office in those days. They shall announce to you the decision in the case. Carry out exactly the decision that they announce to you from the place that the Lord will choose, diligently observing everything they instruct you. You must carry out fully the law that they interpret for you or the ruling that they announce to you; do not turn aside from the decision that they announce to you, either to the right or to the left. The person who acts presumptuously by not obeying the priest who stands to minister there before the Lord your God or the judge, that person shall die. So you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

From this passage, it is evident that in the Hebrew Church, the High Priest held the highest jurisdiction in religious matters. By this means, unity of faith and worship was preserved among the people of God.

Now, the Jewish synagogue, as St Paul affirms, was the type and figure of the Christian Church; for, as he writes, “These things happened to them as examples.”¹⁵⁴ We must, therefore, expect to find in the Church of Christ a spiritual judge exercising the same supreme authority that the High Priest wielded under the Old Law. For if a supreme Pontiff was necessary in the Mosaic dispensation to uphold purity and unity of worship, then such a dignitary is equally necessary today to maintain unity of faith.

Every well-regulated civil government recognises a supreme head. The President is the head of the United States Government. Queen Victoria governs Great Britain. The Sultan reigns over the Turkish Empire. If these nations were without an authorised leader to govern them, they would be reduced to the state of a disorganised mob, and anarchy, confusion, and civil war would inevitably ensue—as was witnessed in France following the fall of Napoleon III.

Even within every well-ordered family, domestic peace demands that someone preside.

Now, the Church of Christ is a visible society—that is, a society composed of human beings. Though she exists to serve a spiritual end, she must deal with the realities of humanity, and therefore she requires a government, just as every other organised society does.

This government—at least in its essential form—must have been established by our Lord Himself. For can we suppose that He, the Incarnate Word, was less wise than earthly legislators?

And shall we suppose that, of all lawgivers, the Wisdom Incarnate alone left His Kingdom on earth to be governed without a head?

But someone may respond: “We do not deny that the Church has a head. God Himself is its Ruler.” This, however, evades the true question. Is not God the Ruler of all governments? “By me,” He says, “kings reign, and rulers decree what is just.”¹⁵⁵ He is the acknowledged Sovereign of our Republic, and of every Christian household; yet there is always a visible leader, a chief who governs in God’s name on earth.

In like manner, the Church—though she has an invisible Head in heaven—must have a visible head on earth. The body and members of the Church are visible; why, then, should the Head be invisible? A Church without a supreme earthly ruler would be like:

• An army without a general,
• A navy without an admiral,
• A sheepfold without a shepherd,
• A human body without a head.

The Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church deny that Peter received any authority over the other Apostles, and thus they reject the supremacy of the Pope.

But this absence of a divinely appointed, visible Head in Protestant communions is for them a continual source of weakness and dissension. It presents an insurmountable obstacle to any lasting reunion among themselves, for they are left without a common centre of unity, without a shared standard to rally around. In consequence, they remain in a state of disunion and schism.

The existence of a supreme judge of controversy in the Catholic Church, on the other hand, is the secret of her marvellous unity. It is the keystone that binds and strengthens the imperishable arch of faith.

From the very fact, then, of the existence of a supreme Head in the Jewish Church; from the fact that a head is always necessary in civil government, in families, and in corporations; and especially from the fact that a visible Head is essential to the maintenance of unity in the Church, while the absence of such a Head inevitably leads to anarchy, we are compelled to conclude—even if positive evidence were lacking—that in the foundation of His Church, it must have been the intention of the Divine Lawgiver to establish over it a Primate invested with superior judicial powers.

But do we have positive proof that Christ did, in fact, appoint a supreme Ruler over His Church? To those who read the Scriptures with the single eye of sincere intention, the New Testament furnishes abundant testimony. To my mind, the New Testament establishes no doctrine more clearly than that our Lord conferred plenipotentiary authority upon Peter to govern the whole Church.

In this chapter, I shall speak of the Promise, the Institution, and the Exercise of Peter’s Primacy, as recorded in the New Testament. The next chapter shall treat of its perpetuity in the Popes.

Our Saviour, on a certain occasion, asked His disciples, saying:
“Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
And they said: “Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
Jesus said to them: “But who do you say that I am?”

Peter, as was his custom, acts as the leader and spokesman:
“Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’
And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’”¹⁵⁶

Here we find Peter confessing the Divinity of Christ, and in reward for that confession, he is honoured with the promise of the Primacy.

Our Saviour, by the words “thou art Peter,” clearly alludes to the new name which He Himself had conferred upon Simon when He first received him as a disciple (cf. John 1:42); and He now reveals the reason for that change of name—namely, to intimate the honour He was about to bestow upon him by appointing him as President of the Christian Republic. This mirrors the pattern in the Old Law, where God changed Abram’s name to Abraham when He chose him to be the father of a great nation.

The word Peter, in the Syro-Chaldaic tongue spoken by our Saviour, means “rock.” The sentence in that language runs thus: “Thou art a rock, and on this rock I will build my Church.” Indeed, all respectable Protestant commentators have now abandoned—and some even ridicule—the earlier notion that the word “rock” could apply to anyone other than Peter. The sentence admits of no other interpretation unless one is prepared to challenge our Lord’s grammar and common sense.

Jesus, our Lord, founded but one Church, and it was His will to build it on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognise Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and cannot stand, for it is not the work of God. This is a simple and solemn truth. Would to God that all would behold it clearly, and with eyes unclouded by prejudice.

He continues: “And I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven…” In ancient times, and especially among the Hebrew people, keys were a symbol of authority and jurisdiction. To say that a man had received the keys of a city was to say that he had been appointed its governor. In the Book of Revelation, our Saviour declares that He has “the keys of Death and of Hades”,¹⁵⁷ meaning that He possesses sovereign power over death and the grave.

Indeed, even to this day, does not the presentation of keys among ourselves still signify the bestowal of authority?

The promise which our Redeemer made—that Peter would be constituted the supreme ruler of His Church—is fulfilled in the following passage:

“Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’
A second time He said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to Him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’
He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because He said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to Him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’”
— *John 21:15–17 (NRSV-CE)*¹⁵⁸

These words were spoken by our Lord to Peter after His resurrection. The entire sheepfold of Christ is entrusted to him, without qualification or exception.

Peter is given jurisdiction not only over the lambs—the tender and vulnerable members of the flock, representing the faithful—but also over the sheep, that is, the Pastors themselves, who relate to their congregations as sheep do to lambs, since they bring forth and nourish spiritual life within the fold.

To other Pastors, a certain portion of the flock is assigned; but to Peter, the entire fold. For never did Jesus say to any other Apostle or Bishop what He said to Peter: “Feed My whole flock.”

Candid reader, do you not profess to be a member of Christ’s flock? You answer, yes. Then consider: Do you receive your spiritual nourishment from Peter and his successor? Do you hear the voice of Peter? Or have you strayed into a fold of strangers who reject the voice of Peter? Ponder this question deeply, for it is no trivial matter. If Peter has been divinely authorised to feed the lambs of Christ's flock, then the lambs must listen to Peter’s voice.

In the Acts of the Apostles—which provides us with nearly the only sustained Scriptural account of the Apostles following our Lord’s Ascension—St Peter stands forth like Saul among the tribes, towering head and shoulders above his brethren by the prominence he assumes in every ministerial duty.

The first twelve chapters of Acts are dedicated largely to Peter and to a few of the other Apostles. The remainder of the book focuses chiefly on the labours of the Apostle of the Gentiles. Yet even in that brief historical account, as throughout the Gospels, Peter’s name is everywhere pre-eminent.

Peter’s name always appears first in the lists of the Apostles, while Judas Iscariot is consistently placed last.¹⁵⁹ St Matthew even explicitly calls Peter “the first.” But Peter was not the eldest—his brother Andrew was older—and he was not the first chosen, for Andrew was called before him. The meaning, therefore, of this designation must be that Peter was first in rank and honour, and first in authority.

Peter is also the first Apostle recorded to have worked a miracle.¹⁶⁰

He is the first to address the Jews in Jerusalem, while his Apostolic brethren stand respectfully around him. On that occasion, he converts three thousand souls.¹⁶¹

Peter is the first to bring the Gentiles into the Church, through the conversion of Cornelius and his household.¹⁶²

When the time comes to elect a successor to Judas, Peter alone takes the initiative. He instructs the Apostles and disciples on the necessity of choosing another to replace the traitor. The Apostles silently acquiesce in the counsel of their leader.¹⁶³

At the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, Peter is the first to speak. We are told that “there was much disputing” beforehand, but after Peter had spoken, “all the multitude kept silence.”¹⁶⁴

St James and the other Apostles unanimously concur in the sentiments expressed by Peter—not a single dissenting voice is raised.

Now consider the treatment of two beloved Apostles by the early Church. St James—one of the three most favoured by our Lord, His own cousin, and brother of St John—is cast into prison and later beheaded by Herod. He was dearly loved by the faithful. Yet, we do not read of extraordinary efforts by the Church to secure his release.

Peter, on the other hand, is imprisoned around the same time. In response, the whole Church is stirred into action. Prayers for his deliverance rise fervently to heaven—not only from Jerusalem, but from every Christian household in the land.¹⁶⁵

The army of the Lord can afford to lose a valiant captain in the person of James, but it cannot yet spare the commander-in-chief. The enemies of the Church had hoped that by striking down the chief shepherd, they might scatter the entire flock. And so, they redoubled their attacks against Peter, the Prince of the Apostles—just as the enemies of the Church today focus their assaults upon the Pope, his successor.

Does not this incident eloquently proclaim Peter’s superior authority? Indeed, Peter figures so prominently on every page of the early Church's history that his Primacy is not only admissible—it is pressed upon the judgment of every impartial reader.

What, then, are the principal objections raised against the Primacy of Peter? They are chiefly—if not entirely—confined to the following three:

First — That our Lord rebuked Peter.
Second — That St Paul criticised his conduct, not in a matter of doctrine but of discipline. The Apostle of the Gentiles reproved Peter for withdrawing temporarily from the society of Gentile converts out of concern for scandalising newly converted Jews.¹⁶⁶
Third — That Peter’s supremacy is said to conflict with the supreme dominion of Christ.

For my part, I cannot see how any of these objections undermine Peter’s claim to Primacy.

Was not Jesus Peter’s superior? And may not a superior rebuke His servant without infringing upon that servant’s office or prerogatives?

And why could not St Paul censure the conduct of Peter, his superior, without questioning his authority? It is by no means uncommon in the Church for ecclesiastics of lower rank to admonish or advise even the Pope, especially in matters of practical judgment or personal conduct.

Consider St Bernard, who, though only a monk, composed a treatise addressed to Pope Eugenius III, in which he offers spiritual counsel with Apostolic frankness and cautions him against the temptations inherent to the papal dignity. And yet, no one revered that Pontiff more deeply than Bernard did.

Can a Governor not respectfully criticise the President of a Republic without impairing the President’s legal authority?

In fact, I draw from this very episode a further proof of Peter’s Primacy. For St Paul records the incident as something notable—something worthy of commemoration: that he actually withstood Peter to his face. The significance lies not merely in the act of reproof, but in the fact that such a reproof was so exceptional that it deserved explicit mention in Scripture.

Do you think it would be worth recording if Paul had rebuked James, or John, or Barnabas? By no means. If one brother rebukes another, the matter attracts no special attention. But if a son rebukes his father, or if a priest rebukes his bishop to his face, we understand why such an event would be regarded as worthy of mention. Therefore, when St Paul makes a point of telling us that he took exception to Peter’s conduct, he presents it as an unusual exercise of Apostolic liberty, and leaves us with the unmistakable inference that Peter was his superior.

In the very same Epistle to the Galatians, St Paul clearly acknowledges Peter’s higher rank:

“Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days.”¹⁶⁷

Saints Chrysostom and Ambrose affirm that this was no idle visit or mere formality. St Paul’s journey had a definite purpose: to demonstrate respect and honour for the chief of the Apostles. Even St Jerome, in his characteristically frank and humorous style, observes:

“Paul went not to behold Peter’s eyes, his cheeks, or his countenance—whether he was thin or stout, with nose straight or twisted, covered with hair or bald—not to observe the outward man, but to show honour to the first Apostle.”

There are those who continue to insist—in defiance of our Lord’s own words—that loyalty to Peter implies disloyalty to Christ, and that by acknowledging Peter as the rock on which the Church is built, we somehow diminish or overlook the role of the Saviour.

Far from it.

We affirm with full conviction that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone, the Divine Architect of His Church. To recognise Peter as the visible rock is simply to accept the instrument through whom Christ chose to govern.

The true test of loyalty to Christ is not only to worship Him, but also to venerate those whom He has appointed to represent Him.

Would anyone seriously argue that obedience to the Governor’s delegate is a sign of disrespect to the Governor himself? I think any State Executive would question the loyalty of a citizen who said, “Governor, I honour you personally, but I will disregard the orders of your appointed officer.”

St Peter is called the first Bishop of Rome because he transferred his See from Antioch to Rome, where he suffered martyrdom alongside St Paul.

It is not surprising that modern scepticism, which denies the Divinity of Christ and even questions the existence of God, should also call into doubt the fact that St Peter lived and died in Rome. The most common objection raised against this well-attested historical event is that the Acts of the Apostles does not mention Peter’s labours or martyrdom in Rome.

But by that same reasoning, we might also deny that:

• St Paul was beheaded in Rome,
• St John died in Ephesus,
• St Andrew was crucified.

These events are also not recorded in Scripture, yet no one disputes their historicity.

There is strong intrinsic evidence for Peter’s presence in Rome found within his first Epistle, as well as in the testimony of his immediate successors in the episcopate, and even in the admissions of prominent Protestant commentators. All these sources concur in identifying Rome as the See of Peter.

The term “Babylon”, from which Peter addresses his first Epistle, is widely understood by learned annotators—both Catholic and Protestant—to be a symbolic reference to Rome, reflecting the moral corruption of the city under imperial rule.

Among the early witnesses who testify to Peter’s residence in Rome are:

• Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome, praised by St Paul;
• St Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, who died in 105 A.D.;
• St Irenæus, Origen, St Jerome, and Eusebius, the Church’s first great historian;

These, along with other eminent writers, consistently uphold the tradition of Peter’s Roman ministry. And no ancient ecclesiastical writer has ever contradicted this claim.

Even John Calvin, a witness beyond suspicion, along with William Cave, an esteemed Anglican scholar, and Hugo Grotius, among other distinguished Protestant authors, do not hesitate to affirm the unanimous voice of Catholic tradition regarding Peter’s presence and martyrdom in Rome.

Indeed, if St Peter’s residence and glorious martyrdom in Rome are to be called into question, then no historical fact is safe from the arrows of modern incredulity.

---

Reference:¹⁵³ Deuteronomy 17 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁵⁴ 1 Corinthians 10:11 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁵⁵ Proverbs 8:15 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁵⁶ Matthew 16:13–19 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁵⁷ Revelation 1:18 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁵⁸ John 21:15–17 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁵⁹ Matthew 10:2; Mark 3:16; Luke 6:14; Acts 1:14 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁶⁰ Acts 3:1–10 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁶¹ Acts 2 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁶² Acts 10 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁶³ Acts 1 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁶⁴ Acts 15 (NRSV-CE)
¹⁶⁵ Acts 12 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁶⁶ Galatians 2:11 (NRSV-CE)

¹⁶⁷ Galatians 1:18 (NRSV-CE)