Webster Stumbles Upon This Rock 3: Answering His E-Mail

Webster Stumbles “Upon this Rock” 3: Answering His E-Mail

Webster’s words are in indented, blue and italicized;

my words are in normalblack text.

*************************************************

My Approach:

Bill divides his “rebuttal” into six sections—Six “Misrepresentations” They can be divided roughly as follows:

1. Misrepresentation One:

1. Bill’s e-mail
2. St. Augustine
3. St. John Chrysostom

2. Misrepresentation Two:Tertullian

3. Misrepresentation Three:St. Cyprian

4. Misrepresentation Four:Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jacob of Nisbis

5. Misrepresentation Five:St. Ambrose

6. Misrepresentation Six:Cyprian, Firmilian and the Council of Carthage

It should be noted that Bill does not critique my book per se, but zooms in on the footnotes where his name and books are mentioned. Whether I “misrepresent” Bill, or whether he misunderstood or misrepresents me, or whether we just have a difference of opinion, remains to be seen. So, let’s grab the books and jump right in, taking a look at this “rebuttal” paragraph by paragraph. Here we go.

“Rebuttal One: Part A”: Bill’s E-mail:

Stephen Ray is a Roman Catholic who has written a biblical and patristic defense of the papacy in a book entitled Upon This Rock. It was published in the Spring of 1999. In this book, Stephen Ray makes reference to The Matthew 16 Controversy: Peter and the Rock and The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, both authored by William Webster. In these references Mr. Ray makes a number of charges against Mr. Webster and purposeful misrepresentations of his writings that need to be addressed.

Spelled my name right, got my religion right, got my book title right. So far so good. However, the word “purposeful” seems problematic in that it is a value judgment and not an objective fact. Was I being honest in evaluating his book or was I “purposely” attempting to misrepresent him? Is it possible, Bill, that you and I just disagree and that I was pointing that out, not purposely trying to malign you? Do you know what was in my mind when I wrote?

The First Misrepresentation: The first misrepresentation occurs in the Introduction in which Mr. Ray makes the following statement:

(Here Bill quotes my book Upon this Rock): “Sometimes silence is more eloquent than words. This is especially true in Church history. We hear so much about what the Fathers say and so little about what they do not say. This is revealing and should play a significant role in our research. William Webster has written a book that we will refer to several times in our study. Webster is an ex-Catholic who decided to abandon the Church and cast his lot with the Fundamentalist Protestants. His book is entitled Peter and the Rock and asserts that, as the blurb on the back of the book says, “The contemporary Roman Catholic interpretation [of Peter and the rock] had no place in the biblical understanding of the early church doctors.” To ascertain whether or not such an assertion is true is one of the main goals of this book. But along with what the Fathers say, we need to hear their silence as well. While reading Webster’s book, I noticed, along with his selective use of the Fathers in attempting to discredit the Catholic Church’s teaching on the Papacy, that there are no citations “revealed” in his book in which a Christian, especially a Church Father, explicitly denies the Petrine primacy or the Petrine succession. Webster collects a large number of passages that are supposed to prove that the Fathers oppose Catholic teaching, yet never is there a flat-out denial of the Petrine primacy or the primacy of Rome. This is a silence that speaks volumes! We may find differing interpretations of Peter’s primacy, which is what we should expect, according to John Henry Newman, yet we find no denial of that primacy.

“I wrote to William Webster and asked him if he knew of any Church Father who denied the primacy of Peter or of his successors. Mr. Webster’s response was very telling, and I wish he had been forthright about this matter in his book. His return E-mail stated, “No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were ‘exclusively’ related to the bishops of Rome.”’ What an extraordinary admission; what an extraordinary truth. Many of the Fathers were in theological or disciplinary disagreement with Rome (for example, Cyprian and Irenaeus), yet they never denied Rome’s primacy. They may have debated what that primacy meant, or how it was to work out in the universal Church, but they never denied the primacy. The quickest way to achieve jurisdictional or doctrinal victory is to subvert or disarm the opponent. In this case it would have been as simple as proving from the Bible or from tradition that Peter, and subsequently his successors in Rome, had no primacy, no authority to rule in the Church. Yet, as even Webster freely admits, this refutation never occurred. Irenaeus may challenge the appropriateness of a decision made by Victor, but he never challenges Victor’s authority to make the binding decision. Cyprian may at times disagree with a decree of Stephen’s on baptism, but he never rejects the special place of the Roman See, which would have been the easiest means of winning the debate. The bishop of Rome was unique in assuming the authority and obligation to oversee the Churches. Clement and Ignatius make this clear from the first century and the beginning of the second. If the authority exercised had been illegitimate, or wrongly arrogated, it would have been an act of overzealousness at one end of the spectrum, of tyranny at the other. Yet no one ever stood up and said, “No, you have no authority. Who are you to order us, to teach us, to require obedience from us, to excommunicate us?” If the jurisdictional primacy of Rome had been a matter of self-aggrandizement, someone would have opposed it as they opposed other innovations and heresies in the Church. The silence is profound” (Upon This Rock (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1999), p. 12-13).

Mr. Ray has charged that my response in my email was somehow different from that which was expressed in my book. He charges me with failure to be forthright insinuating that I have purposefully misled people. First of all, Mr. Ray failed to give my full response to his request in my email. The full text of my answer is as follows:

“Thanks for your e-mail, As to your questions let me make this brief comment. No father denies that Peter had a primacy or that there is a Petrine succession. The issue is how the Fathers interpreted those concepts. They simply did not hold to the Roman Catholic view of later centuries that primacy and succession were “exclusively” related to the bishops of Rome. They do not apply the special titles they attribute to Peter to the bishops of Rome and what is more they often attribute the same titles to the other apostles. The most explicit denial of a Petrine primacy in the Roman Catholic sense comes from Augustine which I have documented in the book where he states in exegeting the rock of Matthew 16:18 that Christ did not build his Church on a man but on Peter’s confession. He specifically separates Peter’s faith from Peter’s person and if the Church is not built upon the person of Peter there is no papal office. This is not to say that the Rome did not have authority in the eyes of the fathers. But Rome did not have exclusive authority. The ecclesiology of the early Church was one of conciliarity which was shared by all the major patriarchal sees. Rome was the only patriarchal see in the West and therefore held authority in the West, though in the beginning this was not universal but regional, as Rufinus’ translation of the Nicene Council makes clear. I would strongly urge you to read the historical works that I have referenced from the various Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant historians. John Meyendorff is especially good. Hope this is helpful.” (Personal e-mail from William Webster to Stephen Ray).

First, Bill had not saved this e-mail and he contacted me after the publication of my book around Easter of 1999. He requested that I send him the full text of his e-mail. I freely sent the copy to him. Had I wanted to malign him, misrepresent him, or be dishonest with his words, I could have easily refused to forward it to him. I had no such intention as is proved by the fact that I freely sent him a copy of the e-mail he had not saved.

Second, Bill’s e-mail claimed that the primacy of Rome was established because Rome was the political capital. Not always, which is precisely a main point in my book. Webster is selective in his use of the evidence. When the Fathers cite political reasons for the Roman primacy, he “agrees” with them (although he does not really agree with them, he just uses that as a weapon against the Catholics). When they cite spiritual/biblical/theological reasons for the primacy, Bill conveniently ignores them or dismisses them with a wave and a sniff about it not being a “Vatican I” style position. There is much more to debate in the text above, but most of it will be covered as we progress through this response.

Just a side note here. I have the Meyendorff’s writings that Bill recommended. Another friend made this comment on Bill’s e-mail: “ ‘John Meyendorff is especially good’ but when I read Meyendorff’s Primacy of Peter I see much in there that contradicts the sweeping statements that Webster often makes, and much that supports the Catholic position (i.e. universal visible Church requires a universal visible Head, etc). Plus, Webster himself repudiates 90% of Orthodox theology (theology that generally agrees with the Catholic) so he is terribly inconsistent. If Webster is intending to convert to Orthodoxy in the near future and embrace seven sacraments, devotion to the Mother of God, the priesthood, the authority of Bishops, apostolic succession and the primacy of Rome (at least one of honor, etc) that might make him appear more credible and honest to me.”

Mr. Ray has purposefully misrepresented me in his statements. He is very aware of the fact that I deal extensively with the question he raises in a very forthright manner in my book. Mr. Ray’s main argument rests on an argument from silence, the fact that the Fathers never denied the primacy of Peter or Petrine succession. Of course they didn’t. As I mentioned in my email they explicitly affirm it. However, in affirming it they do not interpret it in the same way Rome does today. That is the point.

I’m not sure if I’m missing something here but it sounds like Bill is saying the same thing I said in my book. I certainly did not misrepresent him. Where does he tell his readers that no early Christian ever denied the primacy of Peter or that it was successive? In his “rebuttal” he wrote, “Of course they didn’t. As I mentioned in my email they explicitly affirm it.” My point was, simply, why not admit that clearly in his book? If Bill states that in his book then he merely has to show me where it is explicitly stated and my argument is empty. I thought it would be helpful for his readers to have this information. I clearly stated Bill’s direct words, as seen above, that he considers them to have varying interpretations and that they did not agree with later definitions of Rome. I didn’t exclude those clarifications. It was not necessary or prudent (considering the space limitations posed by the editors) to add the whole e-mail. Many times my quotes were cut short or even eliminated to cut down the size of the book. (We’ll see later where an important footnote was removed by the publisher which would have eliminated one of Bill’s problems with my book.) The sentences following those provided added nothing significantly new and were merely amplifying what I had included of his e-mail. Is this purposefully deceptive? I don’t think so. Maybe I could have worded it differently by saying his e-mail “contained” the words instead of “his e-mail said”, but that was certainly not an attempt to mislead, it was simply an attempt to relay the heart of the e-mail which I thought was the significant part.

I told a friend that Bill said my “main argument rests on an argument from silence”. He responded, “Horsepucky! There is loads of positive evidence in your book.” I’m not sure what Bill is trying to do here, but to say my main argument is one of silence is not only silly but damages Bill’s integrity. This is one of those things that make me wonder if he really read the book or only zoomed in on his own name in the index.

Do I use the argument of silence? Of course I do. Do I base most of my argument on silence? Ridiculous. Thumbing through the book will make one giggle at such a silly statement. Silence is a very credible argument, though it is only substantial as a subsidiary of substantial positive proof. To deny the often-resounding silence is to ignore important evidence. A good example is this: Jewish families circumcised their infant sons on the eighth day. The New Testament frequently implies that adults and children were included in the rite of Baptism. For example, when the head of a household converted and was baptized, his entire household was also baptized with him (Ac 16:15, 33; 1 Co 1:16). The inference of course, especially based on Jewish understanding of the family and covenants, would include the aged, the adults, the servants, and the infants. If the practice of Infant Baptism had been illicit or prohibited it would surely have been explicitly forbidden, especially to restrain the Jews from applying Baptism to their infants as they did circumcision. But we find no such prohibition in the New Testament nor in the writings of the Fathers - a silence that seems quite profound. Should we ignore this evidence? No, not as long as it is used in conjunction with good, positive evidence.

When Roman apologists use the term ‘primacy’ they mean universal jurisdiction to rule the Church universal. When they speak of Petrine succession they mean this in an exclusive sense as applied to the bishops of Rome. But when the Fathers speak of a Petrine primacy and succession and the primacy of Rome they mean something quite different.

This is the argument, isn’t it Bill? To assert that the Fathers, all of them, always mean something different than jurisdiction is simply incorrect. My book shows that even in the first century, with Clement dictating directives to the Corinthians, we have what Lightfoot calls “the first step toward Papal domination” (Upon this Rock, 128). The Fathers had a much more holistic approach to Peter and the primacy than Bill gives them credit for.

They are not silent on the issue. They never denied that Rome had a primacy, but it was interpreted as a primacy of honor since the Church was located in the capital of the Empire and was the site of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul. It was not a primacy of universal jurisdiction.

This is simply a denial of the evidence (though the second part of Bill’s statement contributes to the historical reality). It was seen as holding the primacy because Peter was bishop there and the successive bishops continued in the authoritative office. It was also considered primary because of its freedom from perfidy, as Tertullian says. My book has much more on this for those who want to research it further. The argument that Rome only held a primacy of honor is simply a case of prolepsis on Bill’s part. Remember that word? This terminology of honor is not from the first centuries but a distinction made by the Orthodox churches relatively late in the patristic era. How can Rome be said to have had only a primacy of honor if she was intervening in the affairs of other Churches, confirming bishops, deposing bishops (including the Patriarch of Constantinople), etc.? This is nothing more than obfuscation.

They never denied that the Church of Rome had a right to exercise authority. But that authority was limited in its jurisdiction.

“Limited in jurisdiction”? Bill seems to be whistling a different tune now. I don’t think the readers of his book will come away with this impression that there was a jurisdictions authority in Rome! Remember readers, that Bill admits this as you continue to read. I thought they had no jurisdiction! Only honor, remember Bill! So, you admit they held a jurisdictional authority - now it’s simply a matter of degree!

But when the meaning of primacy and rule is couched in the language of Vatican I we find a vigorous opposition to such claims by the Church Fathers. There is not silence. The Fathers do speak, and they make it clear what they mean by the terms they use. They also speak by repudiating the unlawful claims of Rome as they began to be expressed in the third century and in all the subsequent centuries of the Church.

Frankly, we don’t find “vigorous opposition” among the Fathers. My book addresses this quite adequately. The fact is, authority is usually spurned and challenged as it begins to impose itself is by itself no argument against the validity of that authority. The Fathers acknowledged the authority of Peter in Rome even if, as is the case with St. Cyprian, they may oppose certain “decrees” or decisions.