Now when the apostles at Jerusalem heard that
Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. (Acts
8:14 NRSV)
In Acts
8:14, we read of the apostles sending Peer and John to Samaria. Critics of the
papacy have pointed out that this is contrary to Roman Catholic claims,
especially in light of Vatican I, as it shows that, even after the resurrection
(when the unique privileges of Peter were allegedly given), that there is a
functional subordination of Peter to the combination of the remaining apostles,
showing that he has a "first among equals" position more at home to
non-Catholic (e.g., Eastern Orthodox) perspectives. As Calvin in his commentary
on the Acts of the Apostles wrote:
Whereas Luke saith that Peter was sent by the
rest, we may hereby gather that he was not the chief ruler over his fellows in
office; but did so excel amongst them, that yet, notwithstanding, he was
subject to, and did obey the body.
In Institutes of the Christian Religion,
4.6.7, he wrote:
Being ordered by his colleagues to go with
John into Samaria, he declines not, (Acts 8:14). The apostles, by sending him,
declare that they by no means regard him as a superior, while he, by obeying
and undertaking the embassy committed to him, confesses that he is associated
with them, and has no authority over them.
This is a
passage that Catholic apologists have not really interacted with in apologetic works on the Papacy.
Notwithstanding, there is one source I have that deals explicitly with it and it comes
from a work by a Catholic cardinal, Raphael Merry Del Val (1865-1930), who was,
at the time of writing (1902), the Archbishop of Nicaea and close associate of
Pope Pius X. I am reproducing his response for those who are interested to see how a
Catholic would answer the charge Acts 8:14 is contrary to defined Catholic dogmatic teachings on the nature of Peter's primacy and the papacy:
In a
response to "The Validity of Papal Claims" by F. Nutcombe Oxenham
(English Chaplain in Rome), Del Val wrote:
“They were sent.” (Acts VIII)
“Now, when the Apostles who were in Jerusalem
had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter
and John” (Acts viii. 14). They were sent . . . That was a strange way for the
Apostles to deal with that exalted person who was their supreme and absolute
ruler! (Page 49). So writes Dr. Oxenham. This latter exclamation of his amounts
almost to a sneer against the person of S. Peter, which, to say the least, is
unbecoming. In this fact of the two Apostles being “sent,” Dr. Oxenham sees an
argument against the supremacy of Peter. Had he considered the whole text of
that chapter in the Book of Acts a little more carefully he would have
discovered his mistake. For (1) S. Peter was among the senders, and hence he may be said to have sent himself, especially as he always took the lead. (2) There is
no objection to those who are in a subordinate position expressing their wish
that their superior should act in a given way, not in their “sending” him. This
is all the more intelligible where Apostles are concerned. Nations, before now,
have “sent” their Sovereigns and Princes on important missions, without
suggesting a doubt as regards their superiority.
And to only mention instances taken from Holy
Scripture, has Dr. Oxenham forgotten what we read in the Old Testament (Joshua
xxii. 13), that the people of Israel “sent” Phinees, the son of Eleazar the
priest, and ten princes with him, to
the Rubenites! Will Dr. Oxenham question the position and authority of Phinees
and of the ten Princes, because they were “sent”? Again, we read that Paul and
Barnabas were sent to Jerusalem by the Antiochians to consult the Apostles
(Acts xv. 2). Are we to conclude that Paul was their equal or their inferior,
or not an Apostle because they sent him? (3) If Dr. Oxenham will refer to the
whole narrative in the chapter of the Acts which he has mentioned, he will find
that S. John is simply S Peter’s companion, and that he acts the second part.
Peter it was who proclaimed the teaching, and
he alone commands, judges, condemns, and finally inflicts punishment upon Simon
Magus. Dr. Oxenham remarks: “Let us try to imagine an ecclesiastical assembly
in medieval or in modern Rome ‘sending’ the Pope and some other Bishops down to
Naples, or elsewhere, to hold a confirmation” (Page 49). Well, the idea is picturesque,
but it is not inadmissible if Dr. Oxenham will also imagine the Pope in Italy
with only a few Bishops round him to provide for all the needs of the Church.
In such circumstances, the Pope might very easily be “sent” down to Naples, or
elsewhere, to hold a confirmation, and when he got there he might condemn
another Simon Magus. “S. Peter,” says Dr. Oxenam, “appears to have gone to
Samaria, when he was sent without exhibiting
any consciousness that his dignity was injured” (Ibid.) Yes, because his
dignity was not injured, nor had S. peter the proud and over-sensitive nature
which Dr. Oxenham seems to thin necessary in one who holds an exalted office.
That is all. (Raphael Cardinal Merry Del Val, The Truth of Papal Claims [1902; repr., Tradibooks, 2012], 49-50)