11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
PETER, THE PAPACY & PAPAL INFALLIBILITY
“In fact, it is impossible for me to misrepresent when I only repeat their own words.”
-(Catholic Bishop John Hughes, Hughes-Breckenridge Debate,p. 191).[495]
“One is forced to admit that gradual corruption of Christianity began very early.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia,12:414).[496]
“About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early Roman bishops, the historical record is silent.What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”—Grolier Academic Encyclopedia, vol. 15, p. 63.[497]
“It would of course be a monstrous anachronism were we to attribute a belief in papal infallibility to Ante-Nicene Fathers.”—Catholic Dictionary, p. 674.[498]
“The pope in himself is subject to error like other men…He has no infallibility in merely historical or scientific questions. Even in matters of faith and morals he has no inspiration, and must use the same means of theological inquiry open to other men. He may err as a private doctor; nor is any immunity from error granted to books which he may write and publish. Even when he speaks with apostolic authority he may err.”—Catholic Dictionary, p. 67.[499]
“Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the Middle Ages”---Catholic Encyclopedia, 6:136.[500]
What they Teach
That Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.
That Peter was given the primacy among apostles.
That Peter was the first pope and head of the church.
That the popes of Rome are Peter’s successors.
That Peter had been in Rome.
That the pope of Rome is the vicar of Jesus Christ.
That the pope of Rome is infallible.
That the pope has the authority to make laws for the church.
That their papal succession is ancient and continuous.
List of popes.
How the papacy came about.
- They say that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.
(1) “The rock[mentioned in the passage] was Peter...The gates of hell [refers to] hostile, evil powers...”[501]
(2) “From the references to Peter in the Gospels it is known that the name he received at birth and with which he grew up was Simon. The Greek word petros (“rock”)[502] and its Aramaic equivalent, Cephas, were not in use as personal names. “Peter” is thus a metaphorical or symbolic designation that came in time to function as the name of the man in question. The symbolic name in its Aramaic form may have arisen in connection with the affirmation that the resurrected Lord appeared first to Simon,[503] that appearance and thus Simon himself serving as a sort of foundation stone of the Church.”[504]
(3) “Peter travelled about in his missionary activity, accompanied by his wife, and finally died the death of a martyr in Rome…Scholars have had considerable difficulty in advancing from these traditions to the historical Peter, but one of the most important of the traditional elements is also one of the most historically secure: Peter was the first to receive a revelation of the risenJesus Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34).[505] From this point other aspects of the picture of Peter have been developed, notably the change of his name from Simon to Peter.”[506]
REFUTATION:
(1) In the Greek Peter is “petros” (masculine) and rock is “petra” (feminine).Petros is actually a small pebble; petraan immovable rock. Petramust therefore refer to the immovable truth that Peter the small pebble confessed, that “Christ is the Son of the Living God.”If Christ wanted to call Peter “rock”, He would have said so. Jesus is the champion in the use of figurative language, yet one could not accuse Him of being ambiguous. It would have been easier for Him to call Peter “Rock” just as He called him “Satan”;[507] He did not do so, because he did not mean Peter would be the “Rock” upon which He would build His church.
(2) Jesus is the foundation(1 Corinthians 3:11). He was also called Rock (1 Corinthians 10:4).The vacillating stone like Peter could not have been the rock upon which the church of Jesus was built(cf. Galatians 2:11-12; Matthew 16:23).
- Based on their reasoning that Peter was entrusted with the keys,
they say that Peter was given the primacy among the apostles.
(1) What does the Roman Catholic Church mean by the “keys”? “Keys: a symbol of authority. Peter has the power to admit into the Church and to exclude therefrom. Nor is he merely the porter; he has complete power within the Church. ‘To bind and to loose’ seems to have been used by the Jews in the sense of ‘to forbid or to permit’; but the present context requires a more comprehensive meaning. In heaven God ratifies the decisions which Peter makes on earth, in the name of Christ.”[508]
(2) “After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after the ascension he began to exercise it. After preaching in Jerusalem and Palestine he went to Rome, probably after his liberation from prison. Some years later he was in Jerusalem for the first church council, and shortly afterward at Antioch. In the year 67 he was martyred in Rome.”[509]
(3) “When the bishop of Rome came to be regarded as the bishop of the most prominent Church in Christendom, the picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the tradition of his martyr's death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic succession, according to which each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter, to whom Jesus had entrusted the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19).”[510]
(4)In an effort to promote the “primacy” of Peter, and of the pope as his “successor,” Pius XII, “in his Christmas message for 1950,” “announced officiallythat the tomb of the apostle Peter had been found during excavations under the high altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome”[511]
REFUTATION:
(1) On the meaning of “the keys”: Jesus says the scribes and the Pharisees shut the kingdom to others (Matthew 23:13). How did they do it? See Matthew 23:2-4. They had the Word of God in their hands, hence they had the power to declare it to the people, the power to open the kingdom. By not declaring the Word, by not preaching the truth, by hindering the proclamation of the truth, they have shut the kingdom against the people. The lawyers too had the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52). In a sense they possessed the key to the kingdom. By opposing Jesus and His work, they, like the scribes, had hindered others from entering the kingdom.
(2) Catholicism argues that because Peter was promised the power, he was promised the primacy. But the same power was promised to others (cf. Matthew 18:18; John 20:23).Does this mean that the other apostles too were promised the primacy? Receiving the power does not mean receiving the primacy!
(3) What were promised for Peter and to others to bind or to loose were things, not persons (see Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18). Peter was able to use the keys, like the eleven other apostles, at the opening of the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Colossians 1:13) on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
(4) Peter called himself a co-elder (Gr. sumpresbuteros), a term that gives no hint that he has jurisdictional authority over the church at-large (1 Peter 5:1, 2). Furthermore, Peter never claimed nor exercised authority or “primacy” over the other apostles. In the council of the church (Acts 15), it was James, not Peter, who suggested what to bind on the Gentiles (vv. 13, 19, 20, 21). To the Holy Spirit, this decision seemed good (v. 28).
(5) The dogma of papal primacy is not based on facts of history but on a legend.[512] “After the fall of Rome (AD 476) to Germanic invaders, the Roman pope[513] was the only guardian of Christian universalism in the West. He began more explicitly to attribute his primacy to Rome'sbeing the burial place of St Peter, whom Jesus had called the “rock” on which the Church was to be built.”[514] In our time, the pope of Rome not only claims just that but also says that Peter’s bones were buried under the “high altar” of their church building![515]They have no way of proving that those bones are indeed Peter’s. Maybe they should try DNA testing to dispel all doubts.
(6) “About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early Roman bishops, the historical record is silent.What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”[516]
(7) The story of Peter’s episcopacy in Rome was invented by the editor of the Clementine Romance, so says Dr. Salmon in his book, Infallibility of the Church.[517]
- Because Peter was given the primacy, he became the pope and head
of the church.
(1) Says Cardinal Gibbons: “The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St. Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole church.”[518]
(2) “The picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the tradition of his martyr's death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic succession, according to which each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter, to whom Jesus had entrusted the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19). Beginning in the 11th century, the Eastern Churches rejected the authority of the Roman bishop (pope), and opposition to the theory of papal succession and authority was a foundation stone of the Protestant Reformation.”[519]
REFUTATION:
(1) Jesus is Head of the Church. “Because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23, The Holy Bible, New Catholic Edition).
(2) Peter calls himself a co-elder[520](1 Peter 5:1-3), an apostle (1 Peter 1:1), but not pope.
(3) The Introduction to the First Epistle of St. Peter, Confraternity Version of the Bible, says:“After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after the ascension he began to exercise it.” At the church council held in Jerusalem (Acts 15), in which the error of the Judaizers was subject of the discussion, Peter did take the lead as “pope and head of the church.” What was Peter doing at that time? Was he remiss in his duties? And more questions: When was the “primacy” conferred upon Peter? Was it after he had confessed the Christ? Or was it after he had seen the resurrected Christ? Seems to me that Catholic theologians could not even make up their minds!
(4) When Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, neither the pope nor Peter’s name as head was mentioned (See Romans 16). If Peter was already “pope” serving in Rome, Paul could be guilty of not paying him respect!
(5) The truth of the matter is, there is nothing in Paul’s other writings about Peter’s being pope (1 Corinthians 1:12; 9:5; 2 Corinthians 11:5). Paul even rebuked Peter (Galatians 2:11-12), something no one could do to a pope today!
(6) Peter’s supposed bishoprick in Rome is largely based on tradition;[521] and traditions, Roman Catholic writers say, are “exaggerated” and “unreliable.”[522]
(7) It is difficult to reconcile legends or traditions with facts of history, scholars admit.According to traditions, “Peter travelled about in his missionary activity, accompanied by his wife, and finally died the death of a martyr in Rome…Scholars have had considerable difficulty in advancing from these traditions to the historical Peter.”[523]
(8) “About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early Roman bishops, the historical record is silent. What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”[524]
(9) Dr. Salmon says the story that Peter went to Rome and served as bishop is an invention.[525]
(10) Unlike today’s popes, Peter did not accept homage from men (cf. Acts 10:25, 16).Unlike today’s pope, Peter was married (cf. Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 1 Corinthians 9:5).
(11) Since the pope of Rome also claims to be the bishop of Rome, hemust not be celibate.[526] The Catholic Bible says “a bishop must be married” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-2).[527] Note: The Roman Catholic Church also admits in their Bible that “priestly celibacy as a law is of later ecclesiastical institution.”[528]
(12) The word “pope” means father, and the use of this title is prohibited by Jesus (Matthew 23:9). If Peter called Marcus his son (1 Peter 5:13), it only meant he was Marcus’ “father in the faith” but not the spiritual father of all Christians.
(13) The popes today are often referred to by Catholics as “Pontifex Maximus,” a title that Peter never used. What does it mean? The Standard International Encyclopedia says it is “the title [applied] by the ancient Romans to the members of one of the two celebrated religious colleges. The chief of the order was called the Pontifex Maximus. The pontiffs had general control of the official religion, and their head was the highest religious authority in the state... Following Julius Ceasar the emperor was called Pontifex Maximus. In the time of [emperor] Theodosius (who died in 395 A.D.) the title became equivalent to the pope, and is now one of the titles of the head of the Roman Catholic Church.”[529]
- They say that the popes, or bishops of Rome, are Peter’s
successors.
(1) Again, from Cardinal Gibbons: “...And that same spiritual supremacy has always resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being 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 rules in the person of his successor.”[530]
(2) “Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the successor of St Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the leadership of the Church as recorded in Matthew 16:18-19: “You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church...”[531] Peter and Paul, they say, entrusted the keys to the bishop of Rome.[532]
(3) “The picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the tradition of his martyr's death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic succession, according to which each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter, to whom Jesus had entrusted the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19). Beginning in the 11th century, the Eastern Churches rejected the authority of the Roman bishop (pope), and opposition to the theory of papal succession and authority was a foundation stone of the Protestant Reformation.”[533]
REFUTATION:
(1) There is only one incident of an apostle who was replaced, Judas Iscariot, by Matthias (Acts 1:16-26).
(a) It was prophesied that Judas would have a successor (Acts 1:20).
(b) The qualifications of one who would succeed him were laid out (Acts 1:21-22).
(c) There were two who qualified (Acts 1:23).
(d) But the Spirit made His choice (Acts 1:16, 24).
(2) On the other hand, not all apostles who died had had successors. When James died, neither the apostles nor the church bothered to have someone take his place (Acts 12:2).
(3) When Peter was about to depart (2 Peter 1:14-15), he stirred up the brethren to remember the things he had taught, but none of these teachings included the papacy nor his successor as apostle.
(4) Both the “papacy” and the “successors to the pope” are just figments of imagination. There is no textual evidence to support it.[534]
(5) “The doctrine [of apostolic succession], however, was not formalized until the conflict with Gnosticism during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, when the Gnostics claimed a secret tradition traceable to the apostles. Church authorities then began to look to the succession of bishop to bishop as the guarantee of orthodox teaching.”[535]
(6) Christ, not Peter, is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). There is no need for an earthly head since Christ has not always been absent (cf. Matthew 28:18-20). Besides, a body with two heads is monstrosity.
- They say that Peter had served as pope inRome.
(1) The Introduction to the First Epistle to St. Peter, Confraternity Version of the Bible, says:“After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after the ascension he began to exercise it. After preaching in Jerusalem and Palestine he went to Rome, probably after his liberation from prison. Some years later he was in Jerusalem for the first church council, and shortly afterward at Antioch. In the year 67 he was martyred in Rome.”Peter’s pontificate, according to Roman Catholic tradition, lasted 25 years, from A.D. 42 to A.D. 67.[536]
(2) “The place of composition [of First Epistle of Peter] is commonly believed to have been Rome, chiefly because of the phrase ‘she who is at Babylon ... sends you greetings’ (5:13), Babylon being an apocalyptic name for Rome. Some scholars have proposed that the Epistle actually may have been composed in the ancient city of Babylon.”[537]