Expert: John of AllFaith - 10/29/2010

Question
QUESTION: The Catholic Church has a complete record of Apostolic succession leading back to Peter. The RCC was not founded 300 A.D. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has had an earthly shepherd, a rock upon which the Church is built.
Matthew 16:13–19:[nb 2]

“ "When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man 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 Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."  
Jesus was obviously giving very special, unique power and authority to Peter to be the rock upon which his Church would be built. If, like Jesus said, His Church would last forever, then there would obviously have to be a succession of this authority, this shepherd for the faithful. Hence the hundreds of Popes in succession from Peter to Benedict XVI.
Peace and All Good Be With You!

ANSWER: Hi Emmanuel,

Catholic teaching is as you say.

As do most Protestants I believe this history and claim are verifiably false and that Matthew 16:13-19 is not describing the creation of the papacy. Indeed, the leader of the first century church was James, not Peter and Paul is by far the most influential teacher/theologian of the Church. Peter never held the type of authority claimed by Rome neither ecclesiastically (as did James) nor doctrinally (as did Paul).

The "rock" upon which the ecclesia (Church) was established was not Peter according these verses. It was Peter's affirmation that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." That fact is the rock upon which the Way of Y'shua (Jesus) and our faith as believers rests.

The claim that there exists an established list of Popes dating back to Peter prior to the early 300's is not correct. Bishop Pontian (reigned from July 21, 230 – September 28, 235) who is on the most widely accepted list of popes is the first Bishop of Rome with established dates as supreme Roman bishop and he was not called "pope."

It was not until the Bishop of Rome proclaimed himself supreme potentate of the entire church that the office of Pope as we know it today was established.

From the time Constantine founded the Catholic Church it was ruled by local bishops who often disagreed on various points. The two main 'straws that broke the episcopal camel's back" so to speak were the issues of "filioque" (A debate over whether to use leavened or unleavened bread for the Eucharist) and the Bishop of Rome's usurpation of universal jurisdiction as "Vicar of Christ" (from the Latin Vicarius Christi). This claim sought to overturn the established policy of relative Pentarchy (co-rule by the heads of five major patriarchates or episcopal sees).

Previously the Churches of the Roman Empire were delegated to the ruling bishops of the region: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Now the Bishop of Rome proclaimed himself "heir to the Throne of Saint Peter" (an unbiblical concept) and Ultimate Potentate and Pope (Father) of the entire Church (in open defiance of I Timothy 2:5). How, Leo IX argued, could the One Church have more than One head? He proclaimed himself to be the One and only Pope (papa) of the world.

The split between the Eastern and Western Church was finalized when Rome excommunicated the Eastern churches and they effectively excommunicated Rome and its churches (although the East continues to accept Rome as a legitimate patriarchate and its leader as Ecumenical Patriarch of the Roman patriarchate). Prior to this each patriarchate had been recognized as an equal member in "the original church built by Jesus." The non-Roman Eastern Churches continued to recognize the others and are today commonly known as the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church, although Constantinople has always been given deference in the East.

This "Great Schism" was long in the making, its currents had been evident for many years before the split between the Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches of "the One Apostolic Church" finally became official in 1054 in part due to the ravages both sides suffered at the hands of the Islamic Ummah.

In 1054, Roman Catholic legates sent by Pope Leo IX traveled east. They formally demanded the Patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, cease from using Greek and to embrace Latin as the official Church language. He refused. They also, on the authority of Pope Leo IX, denied Cerularius the title "Ecumenical Patriarch." The leading Eastern Patriarch was ordered, on pain of excommunication, to recognize the Church of Rome's non-historical claim as the head patriarchate and Mother Church of the world. Cerularius refused and was officially (from Rome's perspective) excommunicated.

Ecumenical Patriarch Cerularius responded to this affront by excommunicating Cardinal Humbert and the other legates sent by Pope Leo IX thus effectively cutting the East off from the Western Church (and/or vice versa).

Prior to this there was no "Pope" as the term came to be applied. Peter is never called pope (papa etc) in scripture. Historically in the Church there was always a clear distinction between "apostles" and bishops and there is no evidence that any bishops held the same position as the Apostles and, again, Peter never exercised such an office. Rather, when contentions among the faithful arose they were settled by counsels (compare Acts 15) where issues were decided by the leaders of the Church (under leadership of James). Peter did not rule over these assemblies as would a pope rather:

Acts 15:13  And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me...

As Wikipedia says:

The title "Pope" was from the early 3rd century an honorific designation used for any bishop in the West.[47] In the East it was used only for the Bishop of Alexandria.[47] Pope Marcellinus (d. 304) is the first Bishop of Rome shown in sources to have had the title "Pope" used of him. From the 6th century, the imperial chancery of Constantinople normally reserved this designation for the Bishop of Rome.[47] From the early 6th century, it began to be confined in the West to the Bishop of Rome, a practice that was firmly in place by the 11th century,[47] when Pope Gregory VII declared it reserved for the Bishop of Rome -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope

Biblically there is no room for a pope and nothing in the Bible nor in history even suggests that Peter held such an office among the Believers.

Place your faith in God through Y'shua not in popes.

Hope this clarifies this for you,

~ John of AllFaith

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: John-
My faith and hope is in Jesus alone. Jesus did not  say "I am the rock upon which you will build my church." He said "YOU ARE the rock upon which I will build my church." And then what of "I will give YOU the KEYS TO THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN." ? If that is not a direct giving of great power and authority, then I do not know what is.
I follow the Pope because he has the authority to guide me in the quest to live the best Christian life possible.
Please take the time to view my blog: http://www.whybcatholic.blogspot.com/
before you respond. It will help you understand much better than what I could fit here. Thank you, and may Christ's Peace Be With You Always!

Answer
Hi again,

--- Jesus did not  say "I am the rock upon which you will build my church." He said "YOU ARE the rock upon which I will build my church."

Not according to the Bible:

Matthew 16:13  When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
16:14  And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
16:15  He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16:16  And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
16:17  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.
16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
16:19  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.

Note (verse 17) where he says: ...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven....

Revealed what?

That you are Peter? No, that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." AND upon that rock, the firm foundation of Jesus being the Christ, the Church is being established.

We continue:

Matthew 16:19  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.

Keys plural

Mathew 16:20  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.
16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

Who received these keys? The disciples, including Peter.

Note also the dispute between the disciples concerning who was the greatest:

Luke 9:46  Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.
9:47  And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,
9:48  And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great.

This would have been the perfect time for Jesus to say Peter is the greatest, he is the Pope. Instead he made no distinctions between them and said the most humble would be. Peter was not the most humble and John, the most humble, is the one talking with him, not Peter.

Over the years I have asked many many Catholics including brothers, priests and a couple of bishops for a single reference in Scripture or in the writings of the earliest "Church fathers" where Peter is elevated to such a post and I've never received one. As I say in the piece, James was clearly the leader of the 1st century Way movement and Paul was clearly the chief (and arguably only real) theologian, both positions that should have been filled by Peter if he were the first Pope. On the other hand, not to knock him, Peter denied Jesus, he failed to walk on the water (but he was the only one with the faith to try!), he is accused by Paul of hypocrisy...

And again note what Peter himself wrote:

II Peter 3:15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

While this does not prove the point directly (its hard to "prove a negative") Peter here says that Paul's writings are to be regarded as sacred Scripture. No such statement is made about Peter's few canonical writings. Just thought this was worth a mention.

Biblically IF there was a person in that position it would have been either James or Paul.

--- .... I follow the Pope because he has the authority to guide me in the quest to live the best Christian life possible.

That's fine. I'm here to answer questions to the best of my ability and knowledge not to condemn anyone. Personally I follow Jesus as the Spirit leads because I believe: (I Timothy 2:5)  For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

No offense is ever intended in my responses. This disagreement has raged within the Faith since the 4th century and we will not solve it here.

As for your blog post Peter: Pope #1 it is a clear restatement of the Catholic doctrine and one I do not believe represents the biblical doctrine. If the reference to Peter's name as rock means anything in this context it is merely that Jesus uses it to make a play on words.

The text is clear in my opinion that the rock on which the Church is established is Peter's declaration about Jesus, not Peter himself and certainly there is no reference in these verses -- even if one accepts that Peter is being singled out this way -- to those who came after him. This doctrine is in my opinion at complete odds with Jesus as sole mediator between God and humanity. If the Papacy was in this position the teachings of the Church was not be so much at odds with what the Bible teaches.

Just to be clear here, I realize there is a lot of anti-Catholic sentiment online and elsewhere. I am not anti-Catholic personally, I just do not agree with several Catholic doctrines (nor do I agree with several accepted Protestant doctrines).

Good Sabbath,

~ John of AllFaith