THE PAPACY, WHEN DID IT BEGIN?

        The single most visible symbol of Roman Catholicism to the world is the Pope.  Perhaps only events involving the royal family of Britain are characterized by as much pageantry and ceremony as are the public appearances of the Roman Pontiff.  In his position as head of the Roman Catholic Church, his influence if far-reaching.  But where and when did this office originate?

        Roman Catholics are taught that the papacy began with Peter, the apostle.  We will let Catholic writers explain their position.  In A Catechism of Christian Doctrine (Revised Edition of the Baltimore Catechism, #3), page 111, the following question and answer appear.

          “Did Christ give special power in His Church to any one of the apostles?”

          “Christ gave special power in His Church to Saint Peter by making him the head of the apostles and the chief teacher and ruler of the entire church.

          (a) The power of the keys was promised to Saint Peter and was actually conferred on him.

          (b) Saint Peter was recognized by the early Christians from the beginning as the head of the church.”

        The scripture given to support these statements is found in Matt. 16: 17-19.  That passage says, “And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.  And I say unto thee, That thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

        Moving just one page, to page 112, in A Catechism of Christian Doctrine, we find this question with its answer.

        “Did Christ intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone?”

          “Christ did not intend that the special power of chief teacher and ruler of the entire church should be exercised by Saint Peter alone, but intended that this power should be passed down to his successor, the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, who is the Vicar of Christ on earth and the visible head of the Church.

(a) A successor to Saint Peter, the first Bishop of Rome, was required as chief teacher and ruler for the same reason that successors were required for the other apostles.  From the very beginning it were acknowledged by the Church that the successor of Saint Peter as Bishop of Rome was at the same time the head of the entire Church.  This successor of Saint Peter is called the Pope.”

          As a student in parochial schools for twelve years, that is what I was taught; it was what all Catholics are taught.  However, history, from both secular and Roman Catholic sources, proves conclusively that the statements made in the Catechism are not true.

STEPS TOWARD PAPACY

        For the first 400 years of the Church, there was no such thing as one man, presiding in Rome, as the Pope,  Universal Bishop of the Church.  To be sure, there were bishops in Rome over those years who sought supremacy for themselves and Rome, the most notable of which would be Leo I (440-461), who succeeded in getting emperor Valentinian III to issue an edict declaring the Roman See as the supreme court of appeal for all bishops. (Encyclopedia Britannica, pp. 489-492).  The very fact that such an edict was necessary shows that the Roman bishop was not recognized as the universal bishop.

        Even as these strides toward power were being made by certain Roman bishops, opposition was widespread and strong.  Cyprian, bishop of Carthage from 246-258, stated in his Epistle 69, “None of us has ever dared to proclaim himself bishop of bishops, forcing with tyrannical terror the obedience of his colleagues…”

        So strong was the opposition that even Augustine, today held as a champion of Roman Catholicism, when he was acting as secretary at the Council of Carthage in 430 wrote, “Anyone who appeals to those overseas (this would be Rome) shall not be received by the communion of bishops of Africa.”  (The Bible vs. Romanism)  Those are very stern words indeed.  It does not require much research to determine that the statement, “From the very beginning it was acknowledged by the Church that the successor of Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome was at the same time the head of the entire Church” is at its worst blatantly false, and at its best, highly misleading.

AS IT BEGINS

          Actually, the first person to assume the title of Pope, as universal bishop, was not even in Rome.  It was Hohn, bishop of Constantinople, in 588.  In response to this, Gregory I, bishop or Rome and later called Gregory the Great and recognized by Rome as one of the greatest Popes, wrote first to John, “You know it, my brother; had not the venerable council of Chalcendon conferred the honorary title of universal upon the bishop of this apostolic See, whereof I am, by God’s will, the servant?  And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given him; none has assumed the bold title, lest by assuming a special episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all other brethren… But far from Christians be this blasphemous name by which all honor is taken from all other priests, while it is foolishly arrogated by one.”

          Gregory the Great was not done.  To the emperor, Mauritius, he wrote, “I am bold to say, that whosoever adopts or affects the title of universal bishop has the pride and character of anti-Christ, and is in some manner his forerunner in this haughty quality of elevating himself above the rest of his order.” (Both quotes by Gregory are from The Bible vs. Romanism, Trice, pp. 67-68).  These are words from the man recognized by most Roman Catholic scholars as a primary architect of the modern papacy.

        Actually, the title of Pope, as universal bishop, was applied to this same Gregory in 604 by the extremely wicked emperor, Phocas.  This was a man who had “beheaded each of his predecessor’s five sons, then put out Mauritius’ eyes (this was his predecessor), and after torture, disemboweled him.” (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, (Malachi Martin, G.P. Putman’s Sons, New York, p. 80 – Malachi Martin is a former Jesuit professor who served in Rome with Cardinal Augustine Bea and Pope John XXIII).  Gregory refused the title, but it was later assumed by his second successor, Boniface III, in 607.

        The Papacy did not spring from the mind of God; it does not start with Peter.  History shows that it grew in the minds of men, ambitious men at that, and what exists in the Vatican today is not what Jesus planned.

A LOOK AT MATTHEW 16:18

        Whenever Roman Catholic authorities talk about the Papacy, the primary passage used by them in it defense is the 18th verse of the 16th chapter of the gospel according to Matthew.  Those 29 words have been used as the starting point for what has grown to be the massive organization of the Catholic Church.  Due to the importance placed upon this particular verse by the Roman Catholics, it is important, for Catholics and non-Catholics alike, to know exactly what it says and the use that is make of it by those who believe in the primacy of Peter.

        To truly understand the passage, one needs to begin reading in verse 13.  That passage says:

        “When Jesus came into the coast of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Who do men say that I the son of man am?  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God.  And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.  And I say also unto thee, that thou are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

        As we examine Matthew 16:18, the source that I will be using to present Roman Catholic reasoning concerning this passage will be The Question Box, by Bertrand L. Conway.  It bears the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur.

        On page 148 this question is asked,

        “Does not the rock mean Christ?  (Matt. 16:18) We read in the Bible “and that rock was Christ.” (I Cor. 10:4)?”

        Conway begins his answer by saying,

        “In Matt. 16:18 the word “rock” refers to Saint Peter as many fair-minded Protestant commentators admit…”

        On page 150 this question is asked:

        “Does not the use of the two words, Petros and Petra, (Matt. 16:18) prove a clear difference in meaning?”

        Conway’s answer was:

        “Not at all.  Our Lord did not speak Greek, but Aramaic, which uses the same word, Kepha, in both places.  Saint John tells us Peter’s name, Cephas, was equivalent to Petros. (John 1:42).”

        It is important to realize that in Matt. 16:18, petros is the word used for Peter; while petra is the word translated “rock.”  Do these two words prove a clear difference in meaning as the question asked, or do they support the Catholic position that the two words refer to the same thing?

        According to Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, the definition of petra is as follows, 

        “Denotes a massive rock, as distinct from petros, a detached stone or boulder, or a stone that might be thrown or easily moved…  In Matt. 16:18, metaphorically, of Christ and the testimony concerning him; here the distinction between petra concerning the Lord himself, and petros, the apostle, is clear.”

        Conway made a major point out of the fact that Jesus spoke in Aramaic, a language that would use the same word in both instances.  However, Matthew, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, wrote in Greek, a language that does allow for the distinction between the two.  Evidently the Holy Spirit saw fit for Matthew to make that clear distinction.  Petra and petros do not refer to the same thing.

        At this point we should mention that Roman Catholic scholars persist in the claim that Matthew originally wrote his gospel in Aramaic and that the Greek gospel of Matthew was simply a translation.  They do this in spite of evidence to the contrary.  The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Volume III, page 2010, says:

        “One thing which seems certain is that whatever this Heb (Aram.) document may have been, it was not an original form from which the present GR. Gospel of Mt. Was translated, either by the apostle himself, or by somebody else… Indeed, the Greek Matthew throughout bears the impress of being not a translation at all, but as having been originally written in the Greek…”

        The Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, Volume IV, page 124 says:

        “It must be admitted, however, that no fragment of an Aram. Matthew has ever been found and Greek edition is more plausible than a Greek translation.  Matthew’s gospel does not give evidence of being a translation, which is one of the weak evidence for the Aram. theory.”

        Conway also mentioned that John tells us that Peter’s name, Cephas, was equivalent to petros in John 1:42.  He is absolutely correct and that just proves our point.  Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us that petros means “stone.” So petra (the rock), denotes a great, immovable mass of rock: while petros denotes a detached stone or boulder.  These are tow completely different things.

        Now Conway uses a bit of circular reasoning which is typical, but makes no sense.  We have already seen that he has said, “The word rock refers to Saint Peter.”  However, on page 150 we find this question:

          “Do not the early Fathers speak of Peter’s faith as the rock?  Does not Saint Augustine state that the rock is the confession Peter made?  Do not others declare that the rock is Christ?”

          Here is Conway’s answer:

        “None of these interpretations deny that Peter is the rock foundation of the Church, as we have explained.  Taken together they make the true meaning all the more clear.  Christ is the original Rock on which Peter rests; Peter is the Rock or foundation of the Church.  Faith is the Rock of the Church, i.e., Peter’s faith is that which makes him the foundation of the Church.  Peter’s confession is the rock inasmuch as his profession of Christ’s divinity merited him the honor of being made the foundation of the Church.

          Despite the fact that Peter and his confession cannot both be the rock, and grammatically they do not refer to the same thing, this reasoning adds yet another foundation.  The truth is, the rock is the fact that Jesus is the Christ, “the son of the living God.”

        “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” (I Cor. 3:11)

PAPAL INFALLIBILITY

        “The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex-cathedra, that is, when, in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the Universal Church, is, by divine assistance promised him in Blessed Peter, possessed of that infallibility with which the divine Redeemer willed that His Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith and morals…” (from Pastor Aeternus by Pius IX).

        So reads the document setting forth the Roman Catholic teaching concerning Papal Infallibility.  As a product of the parochial school system I was taught that this doctrine was implied in the Bible, that it had always been accepted by Roman Catholics the world over, and that it was merely confirmed as an ancient dogma of the church by the Vatican Council of 1870 with complete unanimity.  What a shock it was to find out that none of what I was taught concerning this subject was true.

FROM THE BEGINNING

        Pius IX declared that Papal Infallibility was “a tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith.”  Indeed, if the doctrine was to carry any weight at all it had to be retroactive.  The problem is that the early Roman Catholic Church had no such tradition and neither did a large portion of the church as late as 1870.

        Dr. Geddis MacGregor, on page 137 of his book, “The Vatican Revolution,” says, “In spite of the early recognition of the importance of the See of Rome and the consequent prestige of its bishop, there is not even a hint of an ex cathedra notion before the eleventh century.  Even in the fourteenth, in the lively debates on the nature of papal pronouncements, no such common notion was being either combated or upheld.”  In What Rome Teaches, a booklet by Edward J. Tanis, we find on p. 17 this statement, “Gregory the Great was one of the most powerful and influential popes, bishop of the congregation in Rome from 590 to 604.  He made a large contribution to the improvement of the preaching and music of the church and was an ardent defender of the Catholic traditions, but Gregory never taught that he was the infallible head of the whole church.  Foakes-Jackson, the scholarly historian, quotes Gregory the Great as saying that the title of pope as ‘Ecumenical Bishop’ (bishop of the whole church) was proud and foolish’ and ‘an imitation of the devil.’”

          Another very interesting point must be considered if papal infallibility was a “tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith.”  In Keenan’s A Doctrinal Catechism,  a Roman Catholic catechism in us before 1870, we find on page 305 this question and answer:

        “Must not Catholics believe the pope himself to be infallible?”

          “This is a Protestant invention; it is no article of the Catholic faith; no decision of his can oblige, under pain of heresy, unless it is received and enforced by the teaching body, that is, the bishops of the church.”

          After 1870, the year in which the doctrine of Papal Infallibility was defined and decreed, this question and answer were simply omitted.  There was no explanation as to why.

        So we can see that this doctrine was not something always believed by the church.  Why was it that the teachers I trusted while growing up, and Catholic authorities today, continue to teach that it was?

UNANIMOUS CONFIRMATION

          Catholics are taught that this doctrine was confirmed by the unanimous consent of those at the Vatican Council of 1870.  That is not the whole story.  In the first place the vote was 533 affirmative, 2 negative, and 106 absent.  That is not unanimous and that still doesn’t tell the whole story.

         Twenty-seven North American bishops, including Purcell of Cincinnati, Kendrick of St. Louis, McCloskey of New York, forty-six German and Austrian bishops, and forty-one French bishops sent letters to Pius IX before the Council asking that infallibility be removed from the agenda.  On the day before the vote was to be taken, eighty-eight bishops left Rome because they could not in good conscience vote for something they did not believe in, and if they stayed and voted negatively there would be papal reprisals to contend with.

        Certainly most Roman Catholic laymen would be shocked to learn that this supposed “unanimously” approved doctrine was opposed by the bishops and archbishops of Paris, Prague, Vienna, Rottenburg, Mainz, Orleans, Marseilles, Grenoble, Besancon, Dijon, La Rochelle, Halifax, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Savannah, Wheeling, Newark, Little Rock, New York, and a host of others.  Al of this information is available in American Culture and Catholic Schools, by Emmett Mc Loughlin, p. 117 & 118 and in Under Orders by William Sullivan.

        In addition to this evidence of a lack of unanimity, a group of Roman Catholic anti-infallibilists met in Munich, Germany, in September of 1871, and withdrew from the Roman Catholic Church.  They formed what is known as the “Old Catholic” Church and it continues to this day.  They constitute living proof that Rome’s claim of unanimity of consent concerning infallibility is simply not true.

IMPLIED IN THE BIBLE?

          In Roman Catholicism, individual Bible study is not emphasized and consequently the majority of the laity knows very little about God’s Word.  So, when the church authorities declare something to be implied in the scriptures, few Catholics are in a position to know whether it is or isn’t.  Most, and I know for I was one of them, will simply accept what the clergy says.  Here is how the infallibility of the Pope, as successor of Peter, is said to be implied.  In a Course In Religion for Catholic High Schools and Academics, by John Laux, M.A., on page 97, we find:

        “Infallibility does not depend upon the virtue or the learning of the Pope, but on the special assistance of the Holy Ghost, given him according to the promise of Christ, who said to Peter; '‘I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not; and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.’ (Luke 22:32).

          Hence, in defining the Infallibility of the Successor of Saint Peter, the Vatican Council did not introduce a new doctrine, but simply defined –i.e., solemnly declared in precise words – the ordinary and normal mode in which Christ willed and provided that His Church should be kept infallibly in the path of Divine truth and saved from the assaults of her foes.”

          In making such a statement, the Roman Catholic authorities make it appear that Peter never made a mistake in matters of faith or divine truth” after the church began and that his successor, through the same help of the Holy Spirit, will not either.  A quick glance at Gal. 2:11-14 will show that Peter wasn’t infallible.  He made a mistake in a matter of faith and Paul said he was to be blamed.  That destroys any basis for saying that the Bible implies Papal infallibility.

        The vast majority of Roman Catholics do not know these things; they accept what the clergy tells them, and they won’t hear these things from a priest.