![\"\"](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/04\/Cover-551x833-1-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nProtestant anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan has been on an \u201cAugustine & Peter\u201d kick lately, having produced three lengthy treatises on the topic (though he carefully and conveniently avoids key factors, as I will show). He misses the forest for the trees, and demonstrates once again that he has a dim understanding of both the Catholic view on the \u201crequired\u201d exegesis of biblical texts and Augustine\u2019s view of the papacy. His words will be in blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n *****<\/p>\n Swan\u2019s first tome was: Augustine: \u201cAmong these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church.\u201d<\/a> (4-4-22). He cited St. Augustine and then opined:<\/p>\n This quote was the first in a cumulative case meant to establish the historical pedigree of the modern Roman Catholic papacy. Out of curiosity, I did a cursory search to see the quote in context. what I discovered was that it did not establish the historical pedigree of the modern Roman Catholic papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n At least one of the questions on his mind, then, was whether various things Augustine wrote substantiate the notion that there is<\/strong> such a thing as an historically continuous papacy, starting with Peter<\/strong><\/em>. He studiously avoided (in all three articles) directly dealing with this question as regards Augustine\u2019s own opinion (which is easy enough to establish); instead choosing to major on the minors.<\/p>\n Typically, he did extensive research into the context of this particular quote. That\u2019s neither here nor there, and he accomplishes little here, but it must be realized that such efforts on his part are always<\/em> undertaken with the implicit insinuation that Catholic presentations of patristic quotations are dishonest<\/em> (either out of ignorance \u2014 incompetence \u2014 or deliberation). Swan set forth his \u201cConclusion\u201d:<\/p>\n The specific thing I looked for when I read the sermon was anything explicit from Augustine indicating Peter was \u201cthe rock\u201d the church was founded on, that Peter had been given charism of infallibility, that papal succession over the universal church began with Peter<\/em>, etc. I didn\u2019t find any of these concepts in the sermon. Certainly, Augustine notes Peter\u2019s preeminence in the Biblical record (\u201cfirst among the apostles\u201d), but this does [not] substantiate the modern Roman Catholic historical papal claims. Perhaps knee-jerk Protestants think that Peter was just some guy among the myriad of first century Christians, but I do recognize that Peter was a main and important apostle.\u00a0 That\u2019s much different though\u00a0 than reading an infallible papacy back into the historical record<\/em>!<\/span> [my italics added]<\/p>\n Note that he thinks there is no such thing as papal succession and insinuates that St. Augustine doesn\u2019t believe in it. He seems to think that St. Augustine would deny that 1) Peter was the first pope, and 2) that this line of popes of which Peter was the first, was historically continuous. In other words, it\u2019s the same tired and absurd line that Augustine was supposedly more Protestant than Catholic: including with regard to ecclesiology.<\/p>\n More interesting than this article was the exchange in the combox that ensued. One \u201cJohn Q Public\u201d: who appears to be Catholic (fortunately, he is not banned over there, as I am), made a dead-on comment:<\/p>\n This quote from St. Augustine is cited because it makes clear Augustine thought Peter special, first among the Apostles. You\u2019re not refuting that\u2019s what Augustine says or that he\u2019s right to say this.<\/p>\n What you actually deny is only implicit in your argument, and it\u2019s not addressed one way or the other by the quote from St. Augustine. You\u2019re eliding the historical question: was Peter the first Pope? You have left unstated your assumption that, even assuming Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, he did not in fact have any sort of special authority or charism that would result in him being called Pope.<\/p>\n But Catholic apologists are not quoting this to prove the second part of the argument, but only the first, which part you don\u2019t actually deny. So it\u2019s not clear why you wrote this post.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And here is how Swan responded:<\/p>\n For the sake of \u201cclarity\u201d-<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026the person I was interacting with that put forth the quote stated, \u201cLet us look at [the ECF\u2019s] viewpoint on the Papacy for example.\u201d The hyperlink to this person\u2019s words is found as the very first word of this blog entry.<\/span><\/p>\n \u2026or\u2026 note the from the North American Papacy, Catholic Answers: \u201cDid the early Church recognize a papacy? See for yourself. A collection of quotes from early Christians and Church Fathers recognizing the primacy of Peter among the apostles.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n Rome\u2019s defenders often equate Peter\u2019s prominence in the Bible as a proof for the papacy.<\/span><\/p>\n Note how Swan studiously avoided what John was suggesting. And it\u2019s always a possibility that he didn\u2019t comprehend or follow his reasoning. I\u2019ve been dealing with Swan for nearly twenty years now (off and on). All of this is par for the course.<\/p>\n In any event, here is the compelling evidence from St. Augustine (utterly ignored by Swan), showing that he did indeed regard Peter as the first pope and the first of a line of succession:<\/p>\n The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. (Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus<\/em><\/a> [Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti<\/em>, 397], 4, 5)<\/p>\n But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation. (Against Faustus the Manichee<\/em> <\/a>[Contra Faustum Manichaeum<\/em>, 397-398],\u00a0xxii, 70)<\/p>\n For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: \u201cUpon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!\u201d [Matthew\u00a016:18] The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:\u2014 Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. (Letters<\/em><\/a> [Epistulae<\/em>, 386-429],53 [1, 2]: from Augustine, Fortunatus, and Alypius to Generosus [400] <\/em>)<\/p>\n . . . that order of bishops, reaching from Peter himself to Anastasius, who now occupies that see . . . (Letters<\/em><\/a> [Epistulae<\/em>, 386-429],53 [1, 3]: from Augustine, Fortunatus, and Alypius to Generosus [400] <\/em>)<\/p>\n For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom. (On Baptism, Against the Donatists<\/em><\/a> [De baptismo<\/em>, 400 \/ 401], ii, 1, 2)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Swan\u2019s second article is entitled, \u201cWhat Was Augustine \u201cRetracting\u201d on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16?<\/a>\u201d (4-12-22). Here he notes that St. Augustine earlier in his life taught that Jesus called Peter himself<\/em> \u201cthe Rock\u201d and later in his life favored the view that \u201cthe Rock\u201d Jesus referred to was Himself and not Peter. He correctly noted that Augustine, in his late book Retractationes<\/em> was tolerant of Catholics holding either view that he himself held at various times.<\/p>\n He is obviously under the mistaken impression (manifest throughout this article) that Catholics are supposedly formally bound to one interpretation only of Matthew 16, so that it is supposedly scandalous and significant that St. Augustine (later in life) did not hold that Peter was the Rock, which we apologists note is a position now held by many prominent Protestant exegetes (like, e.g., R. T. France and D. A. Carson).<\/p>\n In fact, this is mostly an irrelevant consideration. St. Augustine (and only later in his life) happened to disagree with what many Church fathers held regarding the interpretation of one Bible passage. No Catholic claims that Augustine is infallible. It\u2019s neither here nor there in terms of Catholic self-understanding, the Catholic rule of faith, Catholic ecclesiology, or Catholic apologetics: particularly the defense of the papacy. When St. Augustine changed his mind (as he had perfect freedom to do), he wasn\u2019t dogmatic<\/em> about it: precisely the position of the Catholic Church regarding specific instances of exegesis.<\/p>\n As the tract from Catholic Answers (\u201cScripture Passages Definitively Interpreted by the Church\u201d<\/a>) noted, only seven<\/em><\/strong> passages of Scripture (yes, seven!) must be interpreted a certain way, according to the Council of Trent: all having to do with justification or the sacraments (Mt 18:18; Lk 22:19; Jn 3:5; 20:22-23; Rom 5:12; 1 Cor 11:24; Jas 6:14). Matthew 16:18-19 was not among them. Catholic apologist Patrick Madrid stated about Pastor aeternus<\/em><\/a>, the document from 1870 that defined papal infallibility as a de fide<\/em> dogma:<\/p>\n [T]he dogma being defined here is Peter\u2019s primacy and authority over the Church \u2014 not a formal exegesis of Matthew 16. The passages from Matthew 16 and John 21 are given as reasons for defining the doctrine, but they are not themselves the subject of the definition. As anyone familiar with the dogma of papal infallibility knows, the reasons given in a dogmatic definition are not themselves considered infallible; only the result of the deliberations is protected from error. It\u2019s always possible that while the doctrine defined is indeed infallible, some of the proofs adduced for it end up being incorrect. (Pope Fiction<\/i>, San Diego: Basilica Press, 1999, 254)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Whether, then, St. Augustine believed (for part of his life) that Jesus meant to say that Peter himself was the Rock or not, is interesting as a piece of \u201cpatristic trivia\u201d but has no bearing or importance whatever in terms of Catholic ecclesiology or apologetics defending same. It\u2019s essentially a big \u201cho hum\u201d \/ \u201cwhat else<\/em> is new?\u201d \/ \u201cso what<\/em>?\u201d matter. The fascinating and remarkable thing is that James Swan \u2014 who has been studying Catholicism in a hostile manner for many years \u2014 doesn\u2019t get<\/em> this.<\/p>\n His third paper, \u201cAugustine\u2019s Multiple References to Peter as the \u201cRock\u201d: a Response to Rome\u2019s Defenders<\/a>\u201d (4-18-22), keeps quixotically flailing away at the same windmills, and contains supposed zingers like, \u201cWho\u2019s correct, Augustine or modern Roman Catholic apologists?\u201d<\/span> and the following statement allegedly about \u201cRome\u2019s defenders\u201d<\/span>:<\/p>\n What I\u2019ve noticed in the quotes they\u2019ve mined out is the distinction Augustine himself makes between his earlier and later writings on Peter and the \u201cRock\u201d is blurred or non-existent. . . .<\/span><\/p>\n It appears the cumulative case method of citing various statements from Augustine throughout his life is put forth to downplay Augustine\u2019s clear later view.\u00a0 I contend Rome\u2019s defenders therefore are spoof-texting Augustine\u2019s writings, hiding the very distinction he refers to in the Retractationes<\/i>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sure some of these apologists have emphasized passages that are more \u201cagreeable\u201d to their positions, just as Swan does the same from his perspective. I happen to be a Catholic apologist, too, and I didn\u2019t hide this change of position in Augustine in my 2012 book, The Quotable Augustine: Distinctively Catholic Elements in His Theology.<\/a><\/i> I cited St. Augustine from his Lectures on the Gospel of John<\/em><\/a>, on p. 171:<\/p>\n [T]he Rock (Petra<\/em>) was Christ; . . . Christ is to be understood as the Rock . . . (124, 5)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Again, I cited Sermon 26<\/a>, from page 172:<\/p>\n Christ is the rock (Petra) . . . (26, 1; LXXVI)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n And I quoted Sermon 97<\/a>, on page 173:<\/p>\n [T]he Rock was Christ. (97, 3; CXLVII)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n It would be awful odd that if I were trying to mischievously hide this teaching of Augustine in my book of his quotations, to mention it three times <\/em>(all three with links to the Schaff collection of the Fathers).<\/p>\n Therefore, I have presented the full truth and hidden nothing, whereas Swan has deliberately hidden the fact that St. Augustine regarded Peter as the first pope, with successors up till his own time. And he has shown himself greatly misinformed as to the question of the \u201cauthoritative\u201d status of Matthew 16 in Catholic \u201cpapal apologetics.\u201d This makes him regard his trio of articles as some sort of unanswerable \u201cslam dunk\u201d, when in fact, they are non sequiturs<\/em>, containing some interesting trivia<\/em>, but little more<\/em> than that.<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Practical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n ***<\/p>\n Summary<\/em>: Anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan analyzes Augustine & \u201cThis Rock\u201d, & thinks his change of mind regarding Matthew 16:18 is supposedly a Catholic difficulty.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Protestant anti-Catholic polemicist James Swan has been on an \u201cAugustine & Peter\u201d kick lately, having produced three lengthy treatises on the topic (though he carefully and conveniently avoids key factors, as I will show). He misses the forest for the trees, and demonstrates once again that he has a dim understanding of both the Catholic […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":63913,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[231,239,138],"tags":[16033,16030,16021,16024,832,4509,161,1656,16027,4350,1130,162,4290,1653],"class_list":["post-63912","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-anti-catholicism","category-fathers-of-the-church","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-augustine-this-rock","tag-augustine-papal-succession","tag-augustine-peter","tag-augustine-the-papacy","tag-james-swan","tag-matthew-1618","tag-papacy","tag-papal-succession","tag-peter-the-first-pope","tag-peter-the-rock","tag-petrine-primacy","tag-popes","tag-primacy-of-peter","tag-roman-primacy"],"yoast_head":"\n