Download
1 / 35
E N D
“We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to Blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom He had already said: "Thou shalt be called Cephas," [John i. 42] that the Lord, after the confession made by him, saying, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God," addressed these solemn words, "Blessed art thou, Simon, Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but My Father, Who is in Heaven.
And I say to thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in Heaven." [Matt. xvi. 16 ff.] And it was upon Simon alone that Jesus, after His resurrection, bestowed the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words, "Feed My lambs, feed My sheep." [John xxi. 15, 17] At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, as it has ever been
understood by the Catholic Church, are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in His Church, deny that Peter in his single person preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon Blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.
(Canon) If anyone, therefore, shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church Militant, or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honour only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction; let him be anathema.” (From Sermon 4, chapter 2, of St. Leo the Great, A.D. 440, vol. 1, p. 17 of edition of Ballerini, Venice, 1753; read in the eighth lectior, on the Feast of St. Peter's Chair at Antioch, February 22. )
What do Catholics believe about the Pope? Catholics believe that the Pope is the head of the universal church They believe that the Pope is infallible when dealing with issues of Morals and Doctrines The Pope goes by many different titles, such as: - His Holiness The Pope; - Bishop Of Rome And Vicar Of Jesus Christ; - Successor Of St. Peter, Prince Of The Apostles; - Supreme Pontiff Of The Universal Church; - Patriarch Of The West; Where does the scriptural “Support” come from?
“Feed my lambs” Set’s him apart as Pope? John 21:15-17: “So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of Jonah,do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Feed My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Feed My sheep.”
What happened before this though? John 18:17, 25-26: “Then the servant girl who kept the door said to Peter, “You are not also one of this Man’s disciples, are you?” He said, “I am not.” Now Simon Peter stood and warmed himself. Therefore they said to him, “You are not also one of His disciples, are you?” He denied it and said, “I am not!” One of the servants of the high priest, a relative of him whose ear Peter cut off, said, “Did I not see you in the garden with Him?” This is vital to understanding why Peter was the only one asked, and why he was asked three times later by Jesus
Cyril of Alexandria (5th Century) demonstrates that the earliest, and most logical, understanding of this passage is that held by Protestants, not Roman Catholics, he said: “If anyone asks for what cause he asked Simon only, though the other disciples were present, and what he means by “Feed my lambs,” and the like, we answer that St. Peter, with the other disciples, had been already chosen to the Apostleship, but because meanwhile Peter had fallen (for under great fear he had thrice denied the Lord), he now heals him that was sick, and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial, contrasting the former with the latter, and compensating the fault with the correction.”
Peter was not the only disciple who was told to be a shepherd to the church of God Acts 20:28: “Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” There is no reason to believe that this passage sets Peter aside as the head shepherd of the church, it is a passage of restoration to a position that all the disciples had
When you talk about the Pope, and Bible verses that “support” the idea, the most cited passage without comparison is Matthew chapter 16 Matthew 16:13-20: “When Jesus came into the region of Caesarea Philippi, He asked His disciples, saying, "Who do men say that I, the Son of Man, am?” So they said, “Some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. 18 And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. And 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.” Then He commanded His disciples that they should tell no one that He was Jesus the Christ.” Does this text establish the Papacy as seen by Rome?
The most basic objection is based on the original language and the words used When Jesus said “I tell you that you are Peter” he used to Greek term petros, which means a stone of small rock When Jesus said “On this rock I will build my church” The word “rock” is expressed in the Greek as petra Peter and the “rock” that Jesus refers to are different words, how could it be Peter?
The typical answer you will get from a catholic apologist is that Jesus and the disciples spoke Aramaic, not Greek & that the gospels were originally written in Aramaic not Greek. Problems: First off, no historical evidence (At all) that the gospels were written in Aramaic But what if they spoke Aramaic? Even if that were true (can’t know) the Holy Spirit inspired the Greek text, and made that distinction!
What does the rock refer to then? Historically, there are three popular interpretations Peter being the rock Jesus being the rock Peter’s confession of faith being the rock Textually there is no reason to believe that Peter is the rock, especially considering the difference in words. It is possible that his confession (the confession that Jesus is the Christ the son of God) is the rock, but most likely is that Jesus is being referred to.
Has the opinion of Rome been constant through every age? “Wherefore, in the decree of the Vatican Council as to the nature and authority of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff, no newly conceived opinion is set forth, but the venerable and constant belief of every age”(Sess. iv., cap. 3). “...we, therefore, for the preservation, safe-keeping, and increase of the Catholic flock, with the approval of the sacred Council, do judge it to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful, in accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the universal Church, the doctrine touching the institution, perpetuity, and nature of the sacred Apostolic Primacy...”
How did the early church interpret this passage? One survey of early church writings on this passage found the following views: Peter being the rock (17 supporters) Jesus being the rock (16 supporters) Peter’s confession of faith being the rock (44!) Later on in church history the idea of Jesus being the rock became the dominant idea Remember, believing Peter is rock does not mean belief Peter was the Pope!
There are good Biblical reasons to support Jesus, (and/or) the confession being referred to 1 Corinthians 10:4 “And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” Over 35 times in the Old Testament the term “rock” refers either to God or to the coming Messiah
John Chrysostom: “Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. (In pentecosten52.806.75 – 52.807.1)” Rome says that it has been the universal belief of the church that Peter was the rock, this is not true!
Be careful of the Peter syndrome though… Peter syndrome: The idea that every reference from early church fathers about Peter were meant to support the idea that he was Pope Example: Cyprian of Carthage Cyprian did indeed speak of the "seat of Peter," in Latin, the "cathedra Petri." It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church.
All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa. Often they will quote Augustine, who (at the end of his life) said that it is up to an individual what he wants to believe on that passage, because there are different possible interpretations.
Summing up the matter Von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), 74: “Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt 16:18, John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess—Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas—has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!...
…Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ; often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other Apostles, the twelve being together the foundation-stones of the church.” Even if Peter was the rock (which most disagree with) it doesn’t establish the Papacy as seen by Rome today!
What about the rest of the passage? “And 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.” This part of the passage is used just as much as the first to show Peter is given supremacy over the other apostles and to establish the office of Pope First thing you should notice, Jesus does not give the keys here… it says he “will give” meaning at some future point
Second, the giving of the keys & the binding and loosing are taken together! Which means when it was given, it was not given to Peter alone! Matthew 18:18: “Assuredly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” If you want to separate the keys from binding and loosing (contextually not advised) you have to believe at some other time (not recorded in scripture) Jesus gave the keys to Peter
They try to link the keys (plural) mentioned here with the key of the house of David mentioned in the OT Isaiah 22:22: “The key of the house of David I will lay on his shoulder; So he shall open, and no one shall shut; And he shall shut, and no one shall open.” Scripture does not make this link, but Rome makes that link because of what the keys (well key) meant in the Old Testament The problem that Rome has run into is that we know where and who has the key of the house o David right now, and it’s not the Pope
Revelation 3:7: “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write, ‘These things says He who is holy, He who is true, “He who has the key of David, He who opens and no one shuts, and shuts and no one opens” There is no way that the Pope has the key of David, because Jesus has it right now! If this passage obviously places Peter aside as the head of the apostles, why don’t the other apostles (who are standing right there) catch on to this?
When we look at the rest of the New Testament we have no hint that Peter is the head of all apostles Later on in Mark 10:35-45, James and John ask Jesus to sit at his right hand Who’s the greatest? Mark 9:33-35: ” Then He came to Capernaum. And when He was in the house He asked them, “What was it you disputed among yourselves on the road?” 34 But they kept silent, for on the road they had disputed among themselves who would be the greatest. 35 And He sat down, called the twelve, and said to them, “If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all.”
Peter is not in control at the Jerusalem council Acts Chapter 15 records the council held at Jerusalem During that council, Peter get’s up and talks, and then sits down. Paul and Barnabas talk, and then James talks and ends the council. It is obvious that Peter is not in control of the council like a Pope would be (if he was actually a Pope) Peter’s mission was to the Jews only, which would not make sense if he is the head of the church (which includes Gentiles)
If anyone was seen as the “head” of the Church on earth, it would be Paul, not Peter. Paul rebukes Peter (Galatians 2) because of his views on Jews vs. Gentiles, a doctrinal issue Peter later admits Paul was correct, which can’t be possible if he is the Pope Just reading through the New Testament you would come to the conclusion that Paul is the leader of the church in the first century, not Peter.
Historical perspectives of the Early Church The Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) This council is the most well know council in church history The first thing we want to note is that the Pope (Bishop of Rome) wasn’t at the council of Nicea… Second, the council was called by Emperor Constantine not the Bishop of Rome!
The council didn’t recognize the supremacy of Rome Six Canon of the council of Nicea: “Let the ancient customs prevail: according to which let the Bishop of Alexandria have power over them who are in Egypt Lybia & Pentapolis; because this was likewise the custom for the Bishop of Rome. And accordingly in Antioch & other Provinces let the privileges be preserved to the Churches.], & other testimony.” And why would Constantine call the council of Nicea if he could just go to the Pope for a ruling on the matter
Did Tertullian support the idea of the Pope? "Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]). "[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).
Remember though! The Peter syndrome… Tertullian did not hold to the view that the Bishop at Rome was the head of the church Tertullian was the first one to call the Pope Pontifex Maximus, which is a title that the Pope still holds today What Rome doesn’t tell you is that the title Pontifex Maximus was an insult to the Pope, along with other names that he called the Pope Pontifex Maximus was the title of the head of the pagan cults
What did Clement of Alexandria think? Clement says there was a multiplicity of elders at Rome, not just one Pope There was not a single Bishop of Rome until the middle of the 2nd century Did Peter just give bad instructions on how the office of Pope was supposed to work? Did he forget to tell them that there is only supposed to be one Pope?
Rome claims the Pope is the Vicar of Christ on earth The Bible says otherwise, it says the real Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit that he sent to us Rome claims that we need an infallible authority here on earth in the person of the Pope, nowhere in scripture do we see this need
