Ref. Section:church Authority/apostolic Succession

December 15, 2003

pham,

this is where you describe infalliblity: what it is, how it works, who posesses it, and why. there are many misconceptions about papal infallibility, so its good to clear them up here.

thanks,

phatcatholic

December 15, 2003

The Authority of the Pope: Part I

In other Catholic Answers tracts, we have shown that the Church Fathers recognized that Jesus made Peter the rock on which he would build his Church, that this gave Peter a special primacy, that Peter went to Rome, and that he left successors there. In this tract we will show that they also understood that Peter’s successors shared in his special authority or primacy.

In a wide variety of ways, the Fathers attest to the fact that the church of Rome was the central and most authoritative church. They attest to the Church’s reliance on Rome for advice, for mediation of disputes, and for guidance on doctrinal issues. They note, as Ignatius of Antioch does, that Rome "holds the presidency" among the other churches, and that, as Irenaeus explains, "because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree" with Rome. They are also clear on the fact that it is communion with Rome and the bishop of Rome that causes one to be in communion with the Catholic Church. This displays a recognition that, as Cyprian of Carthage puts it, Rome is "the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source."

Most significant are the passages below in which the popes, by their statements or their actions, reveal their understanding of their own authority in the Church, such as when Pope Clement I commanded the church of Corinth to reinstate its leadership, or when Pope Victor excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor as a group, after which the other bishops sought to change Victor’s mind but did not challenge his authority to have made the excommunication.

In this tract we will cover the views of the popes and other Church Fathers up to the year A.D. 341. The views of the Fathers after this period will be covered in the tract, The Authority of the Pope: Part II.

Pope Clement I

"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).

Hermas

"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).

Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

Dionysius of Corinth

"For from the beginning it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city. . . . This custom your blessed Bishop Soter has not only preserved, but is augmenting, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying" (Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius, Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170]).

"Today we have observed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your letter [Pope Soter]. Whenever we do read it [in church], we shall be able to profit thereby, as also we do when we read the earlier letter written to us by Clement" (ibid., 4:23:11).

The Martyrs of Lyons

"And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])

"And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’" (ibid., 5:4:1–2).

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior’s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord’s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1–24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches—[irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. inDouche, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]).

"Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1).

"Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men ... when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (ibid., 55[52]:8).

"With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14).

Firmilian

"[Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

[bACK][TOP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA

Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042

U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

Usage outside our Permissions Guidelines requires our prior written consent.

If you need to reach us, go to: Contacts

December 15, 2003

Origins of Peter as Pope

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else, even though the Greek word for "this" (touto) means "this very."

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Tatian the Syrian

"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian

"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]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies

"[simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. inDouche, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are

secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is inDouche united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian

"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. ... In this order of succession a Donatist bishop is not to be found" (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland

"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

[bACK][TOP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA

Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042

U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

Usage outside our Permissions Guidelines requires our prior written consent.

If you need to reach us, go to: Contacts

December 15, 2003

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter’s faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? inDouche, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Barak "lightning," (Judg. 4:6), Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

Look at the scene

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.

Promises to Peter

When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).

Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.

Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).

Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.

Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Who is the rock?

Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.

From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.

As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.

Another alternative

The previous argument also settles the question of whether the word refers to Christ himself, since he is mentioned within the profession of faith. The fact that he is elsewhere, by a different metaphor, called the cornerstone (Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:4-8) does not disprove that here Peter is the foundation. Christ is naturally the principal and, since he will be returning to heaven, the invisible foundation of the Church that he will establish; but Peter is named by him as the secondary and, because he and his successors will remain on earth, the visible foundation. Peter can be a foundation only because Christ is the first one.

In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14). One cannot take a single metaphor from a single passage and use it to twist the plain meaning of other passages. Rather, one must respect and harmonize the different passages, for the Church can be described as having different foundations since the word foundation can be used in different senses.

Look at the Aramaic

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

[bACK][TOP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA

Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042

U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

Usage outside our Permissions Guidelines requires our prior written consent.

If you need to reach us, go to: Contacts

December 15, 2003

Peter the Rock

One of the points I try to emphasize when giving a seminar is that you can begin to be an effective apologist right away; you don’t have to wait until you become a theological whiz. Just work with what you know, even if it’s only one fact.

I illustrate this from my own experience, and you can use this technique the next time you have verses thrown at you by an anti-Catholic.

Some years ago, before I took a real interest in reading the Bible, I tried to avoid missionaries who came to the door. I had been burned too often. Why open the door, or why prolong the conversation (if they caught me outside the house), when I had nothing to say?

Sure, I had a Bible. I used it perhaps the way you use yours today: to catch dust that otherwise would gather on the top shelf of the bookcase. It was one of those "family" Bibles, crammed with beautiful color plates and so heavy that my son didn’t outweigh it until he turned five.

As I said, I had a Bible, but I didn’t turn to it much; so I had little to say about the Bible when missionaries cornered me. I didn’t know to which verses I should refer when explaining the Catholic position.

For a layman, I suppose I was reasonably well informed about my faith—at least I never doubted it or ceased to practice it—but my own reading had not equipped me for verbal duels.

Then, one day, I came across a nugget of information that sent a shock wave through the next missionary who rang the bell and that proved to me that becoming skilled in apologetics isn’t really all that difficult. Here’s what happened.

When I answered the door, the lone missionary introduced himself as a Seventh-Day Adventist. He asked if he could "share" with me some insights from the Bible. I told him to go ahead.

He flipped from one page to another, quoting this verse and that, trying to demonstrate the errors of the Church of Rome and the manifest truth of his own denomination’s position.

Not much to say

Some of the verses I had encountered before. I wasn’t entirely illiterate with respect to the Bible, but many verses were new to me. Whether familiar or not, the verses elicited no response from me, because I didn’t know enough about the Bible to respond effectively.

Finally the missionary got to Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church."

"Hold it right there!" I said. "I know that verse. That’s where Jesus appointed Simon the earthly head of the Church. That’s where he appointed him the first pope." I paused and smiled broadly, knowing what the missionary would say in response.

I knew he usually didn’t get any defense of the Catholic position at all as he went door to door, but sometimes a Catholic would speak up as I had. He had a reply, and I knew what it would be, and I was ready for it.

"I understand your thinking," he said, "but you Catholics misunderstand this verse because you don’t know any Greek. That’s the trouble with your Church and with your scholars. You people don’t know the language in which the New Testament was written. To understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek."

"Is that so?" I said, leading him on. I pretended to be ignorant of the trap being laid for me.

"Yes," he said. "In Greek, the word for rock is petra, which means a large, massive stone. The word used for Simon’s new name is different; it’s Petros, which means a little stone, a pebble."

In reality, what the missionary was telling me at this point was false. As Greek scholars—even non-Catholic ones—admit, the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek. (For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984], Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368).

"You Catholics," the missionary continued, "because you don’t know Greek, imagine that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock. Actually, of course, it was just the opposite. He was contrasting them. On the one side, the rock on which the Church would be built, Jesus himself; on the other, this mere pebble. Jesus was really saying that he himself would be the foundation, and he was emphasizing that Simon wasn’t remotely qualified to be it."

"Case closed," he thought.

It was the missionary’s turn to pause and smile broadly. He had followed the training he had been given. He had been told that a rare Catholic might have heard of Matthew 16:18 and might argue that it proved the establishment of the papacy. He knew what he was supposed to say to prove otherwise, and he had said it.

"Well," I replied, beginning to use that nugget of information I had come across, "I agree with you that we must get behind the English to the Greek." He smiled some more and nodded. "But I’m sure you’ll agree with me that we must get behind the Greek to the Aramaic."

"The what?" he asked.

"The Aramaic," I said. "As you know, Aramaic was the language Jesus and the apostles and all the Jews in Palestine spoke. It was the common language of the place."

"I thought Greek was."

"No," I answered. "Many, if not most of them, knew Greek, of course, because Greek was the lingua franca of the Mediterranean world. It was the language of culture and commerce; and most of the books of the New Testament were written in it, because they were written not just for Christians in Palestine but also for Christians in places such as Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, places where Aramaic wasn’t the spoken language.

"I say most of the New Testament was written in Greek, but not all. Matthew’s Gospel was written by him in Aramaic or Hebrew—we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea—but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek."

I stopped for a moment and looked at the missionary. He seemed a bit uncomfortable, perhaps doubting that I was a Catholic because I seemed to know what I was talking about. I continued.

Aramaic in the New Testament

"We know that Jesus spoke Aramaic because some of his words are preserved for us in the Gospels. Look at Matthew 27:46, where he says from the cross, ‘Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?’ That isn’t Greek; it’s Aramaic, and it means, ‘My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?’

"What’s more," I said, "in Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered as Kephas in its Hellenistic form).

"And what does Kepha mean? It means a large, massive stone, the same as petra. (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble—the Aramaic word for that is evna.) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: ‘You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.’

"When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them. We see this vividly in some modern English translations, which render the verse this way: ‘You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.’ In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock."

For a few moments the missionary seemed stumped. It was obvious he had never heard such a rejoinder. His brow was knit in thought as he tried to come up with a counter. Then it occurred to him.

"Wait a second," he said. "If kepha means the same as petra, why don’t we read in the Greek, ‘You are Petra, and on this petra I will build my Church’? Why, for Simon’s new name, does Matthew use a Greek word, Petros, which means something quite different from petra?"

"Because he had no choice," I said. "Greek and Aramaic have different grammatical structures. In Aramaic you can use kepha in both places in Matthew 16:18. In Greek you encounter a problem arising from the fact that nouns take differing gender endings.

"You have masculine, feminine, and neuter nouns. The Greek word petra is feminine. You can use it in the second half of Matthew 16:18 without any trouble. But you can’t use it as Simon’s new name, because you can’t give a man a feminine name—at least back then you couldn’t. You have to change the ending of the noun to make it masculine. When you do that, you get Petros, which was an already-existing word meaning rock.

"I admit that’s an imperfect rendering of the Aramaic; you lose part of the play on words. In English, where we have ‘Peter’ and ‘rock,’ you lose all of it. But that’s the best you can do in Greek."

Beyond the grammatical evidence, the structure of the narrative does not allow for a downplaying of Peter’s role in the Church. Look at the way Matthew 16:15-19 is structured. After Peter gives a confession about the identity of Jesus, the Lord does the same in return for Peter. Jesus does not say, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are an insignificant pebble and on this rock I will build my Church. . . . I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven." Jesus is giving Peter a three-fold blessing, including the gift of the keys to the kingdom, not undermining his authority. To say that Jesus is downplaying Peter flies in the face of the context. Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatum from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy.

My turn to pause

I stopped and smiled. The missionary smiled back uncomfortably, but said nothing. We exchanged smiles for about thirty seconds. Then he looked at his watch, noticed how time had flown, and excused himself. I never saw him again.

So what came of this encounter? Two things—one for me, one for him.

I began to develop a sense of confidence. I began to see that I could defend my faith if I engaged in a little homework. The more homework, the better the defense.

I realized that any literate Catholic—including you—could do the same. You don’t have to suspect your faith might be untrue when you can’t come up with an answer to a pointed question.

Once you develop a sense of confidence, you can say to yourself, "I may not know the answer to that, but I know I could find the answer if I hit the books. The answer is there, if only I spend the time to look for it."

And what about the missionary? Did he go away with anything? I think so. I think he went away with a doubt regarding his understanding (or lack of understanding) of Catholics and the Catholic faith. I hope his doubt has since matured into a sense that maybe, just maybe, Catholics have something to say on behalf of their religion and that he should look more carefully into the Faith he once so confidently opposed.

—Karl Keating

[bACK][TOP]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Catholic Answers, 2020 Gillespie Way, El Cajon, CA 92020 USA

Main: 619-387-7200 | Fax: 619-387-0042

U.S. Orders: 888-291-8000 | Non-U.S. Orders: 619-387-7200

Usage outside our Permissions Guidelines requires our prior written consent.

If you need to reach us, go to: Contacts

December 15, 2003

THE PRIMACY OF THE SUCCESSOR OF PETER IN THE MYSTERY OF THE CHURCH

Reflections of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect

Tarcisio Bertone, Archbishop emeritus of Vercelli, Secretary

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. At this moment in the Church's life, the question of the primacy of Peter and of his Successors has exceptional importance as well as ecumenical significance. John Paul II has frequently spoken of this, particularly in the Encyclical Ut unum sint, in which he extended an invitation especially to pastors and theologians to "find a way of exercising the primacy which, while in no way renouncing what is essential to its mission, is nonetheless open to a new situation".1

In answer to the Holy Father's invitation, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decided to study the matter by organizing a strictly doctrinal symposium on The Primacy of the Successor of Peter, which was held in the Vatican from 2 to 4 December 1996. Its Proceedings have recently been published.2

2. In his Message to those attending the symposium, the Holy Father wrote: "The Catholic Church is conscious of having preserved, in fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition and the faith of the Fathers, the ministry of the Successor of Peter".3 In the history of the Church, there is a continuity of doctrinal development on the primacy. In preparing the present text, which appears in the Appendix of the above-mentioned Proceedings,4 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has used the contributions of the scholars who took part in the symposium, but without intending to offer a synthesis of them or to go into questions requiring further study. These "Reflections" - appended to the symposium - are meant only to recall the essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy, Christ's great gift to his Church because it is a necessary service to unity and, as history shows, it has often defended the freedom of Bishops and the particular Churches against the interference of political authorities.

I. Origin, Purpose and Nature of the Primacy

3. "First Simon, who is called Peter".5 With this significant emphasis on the primacy of Simon Peter, St Matthew inserts in his Gospel the list of the Twelve Apostles, which also begins with the name of Simon in the other two synoptic Gospels and in Acts.6 This list, which has great evidential force, and other Gospel passages7 show clearly and simply that the New Testament canon received what Christ said about Peter and his role in the group of the Twelve.8 Thus, in the early Christian communities, as later throughout the Church, the image of Peter remained fixed as that of the Apostle who, despite his human weakness, was expressly assigned by Christ to the first place among the Twelve and was called to exercise a distinctive, specific task in the Church. He is the rock on which Christ will build his Church;9 he is the one, after he has been converted, whose faith will not fail and who will strengthen his brethren;10 lastly, he is the Shepherd who will lead the whole community of the Lord's disciples. 11

In Peter's person, mission and ministry, in his presence and death in Rome attested by the most ancient literary and archaeological tradition - the Church sees a deeper reality essentially related to her own mystery of communion and salvation: "Ubi Petrus, ibi ergo Ecclesia".12 From the beginning and with increasing clarity, the Church has understood that, just as there is a succession of the Apostles in the ministry of Bishops, so too the ministry of unity entrusted to Peter belongs to the permanent structure of Christ's Church and that this succession is established in the see of his martyrdom.

4. On the basis of the New Testament witness, the Catholic Church teaches, as a doctrine of faith, that the Bishop of Rome is the Successor of Peter in his primatial service in the universal Church;13 this succession explains the preeminence of the Church of Rome,14 enriched also by the preaching and martyrdom of St Paul.

In the divine plan for the primacy as "the office that was given individually by the Lord to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be handed on to his successors",15 we already see the purpose of the Petrine charism, i.e., "the unity of faith and communion" 16 of all believers. The Roman Pontiff, as the Successor of Peter, is "the perpetual and visible principle and foundation of unity both of the Bishops and of the multitude of the faithful" 17 and therefore he has a specific ministerial grace for serving that unity of faith and communion which is necessary for the Church to fulfil her saving mission. 18

5. The Constitution Pastor aeternus of the First Vatican Council indicated the purpose of the Primacy in its Prologue and then dedicated the body of the text to explaining the content or scope of its power. The Second Vatican Council, in turn, reaffirmed and completed the teaching of Vatican I,19 addressing primarily the theme of its purpose, with particular attention to the mystery of the Church as Corpus Ecclesiarum.20 This consideration allowed for a clearer exposition of how the primatial office of the Bishop of Rome and the office of the other Bishops are not in opposition but in fundamental and essential harmony.21

Therefore, "when the Catholic Church affirms that the office of the Bishop of Rome corresponds to the will of Christ, she does not separate this office from the mission entrusted to the whole body of Bishops, who are also 'vicars and ambassadors of Christ' (Lumen gentium, n. 27). The Bishop of Rome is a member of the 'College', and the Bishops are his brothers in the ministry".22 It should also be said, reciprocally, that episcopal collegiality does not stand in opposition to the personal exercise of the primacy nor should it relativize it.

6. All the Bishops are subjects of the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum23 as members of the Episcopal College which has succeeded to the College of the Apostles, to which the extraordinary figure of St Paul also belonged. This universal dimension of their episkope (overseeing) cannot be separated from the particular dimension of the offices entrusted to them.24 In the case of the Bishop of Rome - Vicar of Christ in the way proper to Peter as Head of the College of Bishops25 - the sollicitudo omnium Ecclesiarum acquires particular force because it is combined with the full and supreme power in the Church:26 a truly episcopal power, not only supreme, full and universal, but also immediate, over all pastors and other faithful.27 The ministry of Peter's Successor, therefore, is not a service that reaches each Church from outside, but is inscribed in the heart of each particular Church, in which "the Church of Christ is truly present and active",28 and for this reason it includes openness to the ministry of unity. This interiority of the Bishop of Rome's ministry to each particular Church is also an expression of the mutual interiority between universal Church and particular Church.29

The episcopacy and the primacy, reciprocally related and inseparable, are of divine institution. Historically there arose forms of ecclesiastical organization instituted by the Church in which a primatial principle was also practised. In particular, the Catholic Church is well aware of the role of the apostolic sees in the early Church, especially those considered Petrine - Antioch and Alexandria - as reference-points of the Apostolic Tradition, and around which the patriarchal system developed; this system is one of the ways God's Providence guides the Church and from the beginning it has included a relation to the Petrine tradition.30

II. The Exercise of the Primacy and Its Forms

7. The exercise of the Petrine ministry must be understood - so that it "may lose nothing of its authenticity and transparency"31 - on the basis of the Gospel, that is, on its essential place in the saving mystery of Christ and the building-up of the Church. The primacy differs in its essence and in its exercise from the offices of governance found in human societies:32 it is not an office of co-ordination or management, nor can it be reduced to a primacy of honour, or be conceived as a political monarchy.

The Roman Pontiff - like all the faithful - is subject to the Word of God, to the Catholic faith, and is the guarantor of the Church's obedience; in this sense he is servus servorum Dei. He does not make arbitrary decisions, but is spokesman for the will of the Lord, who speaks to man in the Scriptures lived and interpreted by Tradition; in other words, the episkope of the primacy has limits set by divine law and by the Church's divine, inviolable constitution found in Revelation.33 The Successor of Peter is the rock which guarantees a rigorous fidelity to the Word of God against arbitrariness and conformism: hence the martyrological nature of his primacy.

8. The characteristics of exercising the primacy must be understood primarily on the basis of two fundamental premises: the unity of the episcopacy and the episcopal nature of the primacy itself Since the episcopacy is "one and undivided"34 the primacy of the Pope implies the authority effectively to serve the unity of all the Bishops and all the faithful, and "is exercised on various levels, including vigilance over the handing down of the Word, the celebration of the liturgy and the sacraments, the Church's mission, discipline and the Christian life";35 on these levels, by the will of Christ, everyone in the Church - Bishops and the other faithful - owe obedience to the Successor of Peter, who is also the guarantor of the legitimate diversity of rites, disciplines and ecclesiastical structures between East and West.

9. Given its episcopal nature, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome is first of all expressed in transmitting the Word of God; thus it includes a specific, particular responsibility for the mission of evangelization,36 since ecclesial communion is something essentially meant to be expanded: "Evangelization is the grace and vocation proper to the Church, her deepest identity".37

The Roman Pontiff's episcopal responsibility for transmission of the Word of God also extends within the whole Church. As such, it is a supreme and universal magisterial office;38 it is an office that involves a charism: the Holy Spirit's special assistance to the Successor of Peter, which also involves., in certain cases, the prerogative of infallibility.39 Just as "all the Churches are in full and visible communion, because all the Pastors are in communion with Peter and therefore united in Christ",40 in the same way the Bishops are witnesses of divine and Catholic truth when they teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff.41

10. Together with the magisterial role of the primacy, the mission of Peter's Successor for the whole Church entails the right to perform acts of ecclesiastical governance necessary or suited to promoting and defending the unity of faith and communion; one of these, for example, is to give the mandate for the ordination of new Bishops, requiting that they make the profession of Catholic faith; to help everyone continue in the faith professed. Obviously, there are many other possible ways, more or less contingent, of carrying out this service of unity: to issue laws for the whole Church, to establish pastoral structures to serve various particular Churches, to give binding force to the decisions of Particular Councils, to approve supradiocesan religious institutes, etc. Since the power of the primacy is supreme, there is no other authority to which the Roman Pontiff must juridically answer for his exercise of the gift he has received: "prima sedes a nemine iudicatur".42 This does not mean, however, that the Pope has absolute power. listening to what the Churches are saying is, in fact, an earmark of the ministry of unity, a consequence also of the unity of the Episcopal Body and of the sensus fidei of the entire People of God; and this bond seems to enjoy considerably greater power and certainty than the juridical authorities - an inadmissible hypothesis, moreover, because it is groundless - to which the Roman Pontiff would supposedly have to answer. The ultimate and absolute responsibility of the Pope is best guaranteed, on the one hand, by its relationship to Tradition and fraternal communion and, on the other, by trust in the assistance of the Holy Spirit who governs the Church.

11. The unity of the Church, which the ministry of Peter's Successor serves in a unique way, reaches its highest expression in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the centre and root of ecclesial communion; this communion is also necessarily based on the unity of the Episcopate. Therefore, "every celebration of the Eucharist is performed in union not only with the proper Bishop, but also with the Pope, with the episcopal order, with all the clergy, and with the entire people. Every valid celebration of the Eucharist expresses this universal communion with Peter and with the whole Church, or objectively calls for it",43 as in the case of the Churches which are not in full communion with the Apostolic See.

12. "The pilgrim Church, in its sacraments and institutions, which belong to this age, carries the mark of this world which is passing".44 For this reason too, the immutable nature of the primacy of Peter's Successor has historically been expressed in different forms of exercise appropriate to the situation of a pilgrim Church in this changing world.

The concrete contents of its exercise distinguish the Petrine ministry insofar as they faithfully express the application of its ultimate purpose (the unity of the Church) to the circumstances of time and place. The greater or lesser extent of these concrete contents will depend in every age on the necessitas Ecclesiae. The Holy Spirit helps the Church to recognize this necessity, and the Roman Pontiff, by listening to the Spirit's voice in the Churches, looks for the answer and offers it when and how he considers it appropriate.

Consequently, the nucleus of the doctrine of faith concerning the competencies of the primacy cannot be determined by looking for the least number of functions exercised historically. Therefore, the fact that a particular task has been carried out by the primacy in a certain era does not mean by itself that this task should necessarily be reserved always to the Roman Pontiff, and, vice versa, the mere fact that a particular role was not previously exercised by the Pope does not warrant the conclusion that this role could not in some way be exercised in the future as a competence of the primacy.

13. In any case, it is essential to state that discerning whether the possible ways of exercising the Petrine ministry correspond to its nature is a discernment to be made in Ecclesia, i.e., with the assistance of the Holy Spirit and in fraternal dialogue between the Roman Pontiff and the other Bishops, according to the Church's concrete needs. But, at the same time, it is clear that only the Pope (or the Pope with an Ecumenical Council) has, as the Successor of Peter, the authority and the competence to say the last word on the ways to exercise his pastoral ministry in the universal Church.

14. In recalling these essential points of Catholic doctrine on the primacy of Peter's Successor, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is certain that the authoritative reaffirmation of these doctrinal achievements offers greater clarity on the way to be followed. This reminder is also useful for avoiding the continual possibility of relapsing into biased and one-sided positions already rejected by the Church in the past (Febronianism, Gallicanism, ultramontanism, conciliarism, etc.). Above all, by seeing the ministry of the Servant of the servants of God as a great gift of divine mercy to the Church, we will all find with the grace of the Holy Spirit - the energy to live and faithfully maintain full and real union with the Roman Pontiff in the everyday life of the Church, in the way desired by Christ.45

15. The full communion which the Lord desires among those who profess themselves his disciples calls for the common recognition of a universal ecclesial ministry "in which all the Bishops recognize that they are united in Christ and all the faithful find confirmation for their faith".46 The Catholic Church professes that this ministry is the primatial ministry of the Roman Pontiff, Successor of Peter, and maintains humbly and firmly "that the communion of the particular Churches with the Church of Rome, and of their Bishops with the Bishop of Rome, is -- in God's plan -- an essential requisite of full and visible communion".47 Human errors and even serious failings can be found in the history of the papacy: Peter himself acknowledged he was a sinner.48 Peter, a weak man, was chosen as the rock precisely so that everyone could see that victory belongs to Christ alone and is not the result of human efforts. Down the ages the Lord has wished to put his treasure in fragile vessels:49 human frailty has thus become a sign of the truth of God's promises.

When and how will the much-desired goal of the unity of all Christians be reached? "How to obtain it? Through hope in the Spirit, who can banish from us the painful memories of our separation. The Spirit is able to grant us clear-sightedness, strength, and courage to take whatever steps are necessary, that our commitment may be ever more authentic".50 We are all invited to trust in the Holy Spirit, to trust in Christ, by trusting in Peter.

NOTES:

1. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, 25 May 1995, n. 95.

2. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro, Atti del Simposio teologico, Rome, 2-4 December 1996, Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican City, 1998.

3. John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in ibid., p. 20.

4. Il Primato del Successore di Pietro nel mistero della Chiesa, Considerazioni della Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, in ibid., Appendix, pp. 493-503. The text was also published as a booklet by the Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

5. Mt 10:2.

6. Cf. Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1: 13.

7. Cf. Mt 14:28-31; 16:16-23 and par.; 19:27-29 and par.; 26:33-35 and par.; Lk 22:32; Jn 1:42; 6:67-70; 13:36-38; 21:15-19.

8. Evidence for the Petrine ministry is found in all the expressions, however different, of the New Testament tradition, both in the Synoptics - here with different features in Matthew and Luke, as well as in St Mark - and in the Pauline corpus and the Johannine tradition, always with original elements, differing in their narrative aspects but in profound agreement about their essential meaning. This is a sign that the Petrine reality was regarded as a constitutive given of the Church.

9. Cf. Mt 16:18.

10. Cf. Lk 22:32.

11. Cf. Jn 21:15-17. Regarding the New Testament evidence on the primacy, cf. also John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, nn. 90ff.

12. St Ambrose of Milan, Enarr. in Ps., 40, 30: PL 14, 1134.

13. Cf. for example St Siricius I, Let. Directa ad decessorem, 10 February 385: Denz-Hun, n. 181; Second Council of Lyons, Professio fidei of Michael Palaeologus, 6 July 1274: Denz-Hun, n. 861; Clement VI, Let. Super quibusdam, 29 November 1351: Denz-Hun, n. 1053; Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307; Pius IX, Encyc. Let. Qui pluribus, 9 November 1846: Denz-Hun, n. 2781; First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 2: Denz-Hun, nn. 3056-3058; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, Chap. 111, nn. 21-23; Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 882; etc.

14. Cf. St Ignatius of Antioch, Epist. ad Romanos, Introd.: SChr 10, 106-107; St Irenaeus of Lyons, Adversus Haereses, III, 3, 2: SChr 211, 32-33.

15. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 20.

16. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051. Cf. St Leo I the Great, Tract. in Natale eiusdem, IV, 2: CCL 138, p. 19.

17. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz-Hun, n. 3051; John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 88. Cf. Pius IX, Letter of the Holy Office to the Bishops of England, 16 November 1864: Denz-Hun, n. 2888; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, nn. 3305-3310.

18. Cf. Jn 17:21-23; Second Vatican Council, Decr. Unitatis redintegratio, n. 1; Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, 8 December 1975, n. 77: AAS 68 (1976) 69; John Paul Il, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 98.

19. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n 18.

20. Cf. ibid., n. 23.

21. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3061; cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, nn. 3112-3113; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Satis cognitum, 29 June 1896: Denz-Hun, n. 3310; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 27. As Pius IX explained in his Address after the promulgation of the Constitution Pastor aeternus: "Summa ista Romani Pontificis auctoritas, Venerabiles Fratres, non opprimit sed adiuvat, non destruit sed aedificat, et saepissime confirmat in dignitate, unit in caritate, et Fratrum, scificet Episcoporum, iura firmat atque tuetur" (Mansi 52, 1336 A/B).

22. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 95.

23. Cor 11:28.

24. The ontological priority that the universal Church has, in her essential mystery, over every individual particular Church (cf Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, 28 May 1992, n. 9) also emphasizes the importance of the universal dimension of every Bishop's ministry.

25.Bull Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3059; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22; cf. Council of Florence, Bull Laetentur caeli, 6 July 1439: Denz-Hun, n. 1307.

26. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, nn. 3060, 3064.

27. Cf. ibid.; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 22.

28. Second Vatican Council, Decr. Christus Dominus, n. 1l.

29. Cf. Congr. for the Doctrine of the Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 13.

30. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Decr. Orientalium Ecclesiarum, nn. 7 and 9.

31. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 93.

32. Cf. ibid., n. 94.

33. Cf. Joint Declaration of the German Bishops, Jan.-Feb. 1875: Denz-Hun, n. 3114.

34. First Vatican Council, Const. Dogm. Pastor aeternus, Prologue: Denz.-Hun, n. 3051.

35. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

36. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 23; Leo XIII, Encyc. Let. Grande munus, 30 November 1880: ASS 13 (1880) 145; CIC, can. 782, §1.

37. Paul VI, Apost. Exhort. Evangelii nuntiandi, n. 14. Cf. CIC, can. 781.

38. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 4: Denz-Hun, nn. 3065-3068.

39. Cf. ibid.: Denz-Hun, 3073-3074; Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25; CIC, can. 749, §1; CCEO, can. 597, §1.

40. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 94.

41. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 25.

42. CIC, can. 1404; CCEO, can. 1058. Cf. First Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Pastor aeternus, Chap. 3: Denz-Hun, n. 3063.

43. Congr. for the Doctrine of the, Faith, Let. Communionis notio, n. 14. Cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 1369.

44. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const. Lumen gentium, n. 48.

45. Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogm. Const., Lumen gentium, n. 15.

46. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 97.

47. Ibid.

48. Cf. Lk 5:8.

49. Cf. 2 Cor 4:7.

50. John Paul II, Encyc. Let. Ut unum sint, n. 102.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Taken from:

L'Osservatore Romano

Weekly Edition in English

18 November 1998, page 5-6

L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.

The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral Foundation

L'Osservatore Romano English Edition

P.O. Box 777

Baltimore, MD 21201

Subscriptions: (410) 547-5380

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

December 15, 2003

The Papacy

If there is one Scripture that almost every Catholic knows it is the following Scripture:

Matt 16:18-19

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 thee the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven .

Catholics believe that Jesus was stating that Peter was the rock upon which His Church would be built, since the word Peter means rock. Fundamentalists are adamant in stating that the meaning the Catholic Church gives to this translation is erroneous. When asked what is the rock or who is the rock, views differ depending on the denomination of the person you ask. People in some denominations say that Jesus was referring to Himself as the Rock. Others say that the rock is Peter's profession that Jesus is the son of God, the long awaited Messiah.

Fundamentalists claim that since the words used in the original Greek, Petros and petra, are different gender (Petros is masculine. Petra is feminine) Christ couldn't have meant Peter was the rock. The problem with this argument is that the Gospel of Matthew wasn't written in Greek. Matthew is the only New Testament book written in the language that was spoken by Christ, Aramaic. Now in Aramaic the translation for rock would be Kepha. Substituting Aramaic for Greek we read: Thou art Kepha (neuter gender) and on this kepha (neuter gender) I will build my Church. This translation not only abolishes the problem of two genders which seems to cause a major problem but it clarifies, at least in my opinion, what Jesus was actually saying. Does this mean there was an error in the Greek translation? Not at all. Linguistic scholars say that Christ had to use two genders to be grammatically correct. He could not address Peter as "Petra", which is feminine, because the person He was addressing was a man. The masculine had to be used.

"Well doesn't Ephesians 2:19-20 say that we are fellow citizens with the saints built on the foundation of the apostles with Christ the cornerstone? Isn't it possible Jesus meant all the apostles and not just Peter were the rock?" This is a question which I was asked by a friend. If Jesus meant all the apostles He would have used the plural form of the word "you" in Luke 22:31-32. When we read this passage we know he is speaking to Peter because he refers to him by name and the word "you" that is used is in the singular form.

One thing we might want to consider when reading Matthew 16:18 is why Jesus changed Peter's name from Simon to Peter?

Luke 6:13-16

And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles; Simon, whom he also named Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes, And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.

Did the name change have any significance? Was the name of anyone else changed in Scripture by God before? You will notice in the following examples that any time God changed a person's name that the person became what the name meant.

Abram's name was changed to Abraham which means Father of a Multitude.

Genesis 17:5

Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations have I made thee.

Sarai's name was changed to Sarah which means princess, a mother of kings.

Genesis 17:15-16

And God said unto Abraham, As for Sarai thy wife, thou shalt not call her name Sarai, but Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her: yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of people shall be of her.

Jacob's name was changed to Israel and he did inDouche become a great nation.

Genesis 35:10-12

And God said unto him, Thy name is Jacob: thy name shall not be called any more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel. And God said unto him, I am God Almighty: be fruitful and multiply; a nation and a company of nations shall be of thee, and kings shall come out of thy loins; And the land which I gave Abraham and Isaac, to thee I will give it, and to thy seed after thee will I give the land.

After looking at these Scriptures we see that every time God changed a person's name that the person became what the name meant. Wouldn't it then be logical to assume that if Jesus, who is God, changed Simon's name to Peter (which means rock) that Peter would become the rock spoken of in Matt. 16:18? Why do all the Evangelists make reference to the name change if it had no significance? (Look these verses up yourself I'm tired. Sorry, just teasing. Seriously some of you need the practice using your Bible. Matt 4:18, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:14, John 1:42) Why does John's Gospel specifically state that the name means rock or stone?

A friend after hearing some of these arguments said to me "Well that's all very interesting. You can have your Pope for head of your Church if you want to but the Scriptures say Christ is the head of the Church and that's all I accept."(look up Eph. 5:23 and Colossians 1:18. You probably need more practice) "Oh I agree with you," I said. "Catholics also believe that Christ is head of the Church. We don't believe the Pope to be head of our Church any more than the Jews, escaping pharaoh, thought Moses to be head of their faith. But throughout salvation history God has always appointed someone to handle His affairs here on earth. Someone to determine and give the final ruling in all disputes. This someone would also be used to strengthen God’s people when they faltered. In fact just as Moses had to strengthen his people when they grumbled Jesus told Peter to do the same thing.

Luke 22:31-32

And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.

Let's go on to the second verse, Matthew 16:19. The Scripture says I will give thee, talking to Peter only, the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. "Do you know what that means?" I asked. “It doesn't mean that Peter was a Pope or had anymore power or authority than the other Apostles. Actually it does. Keys are a symbol of authority. In Rev. 1:18 Christ tell us that He has the keys of hell and death.

Revelation 1:18

I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.

The keys mean Jesus has complete authority over hell and death. When Jesus told Peter that he would be given the keys to Kingdom of Heaven Peter's jaw probably dropped open because it was as if Jesus had to explain it. Yes Peter I am giving you the keys. Yes you have the authority. That means whatever you bind is bound and whatever you loose is loosed.

One more Scripture I would like you to consider in regards to Peter's role as Pope. In John 21:15-17, Christ the Good Shepherd knowing that His work is done on earth and that soon He will ascend to the Father asks Peter for a profession of love.

John 21:15-17

So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Jesus didn't ask Peter only once which He certainly could have done. He asks Him three times. Why? Jesus wanted to make sure Peter really understood that he was forgiven for denying Him three times. I'm sure He told Peter, but Peter is heartbroken and can't forgive himself. This is the scene as I picture it. Peter I am sure is probably ashamed of the bravado he displayed before Christ and the apostles. I can picture Peter laughing when Jesus foretold his denial. "Me", he bragged ,"deny you? No way. Now these other guys, maybe. Not me. Why I'd die with you rather then deny You." He probably sneered at the other apostles thinking "You guys, maybe. Never me." A different Peter stands before Christ as Jesus asks "Simon son of John, do you love me more than these others do?" No boasting, no sneering at the others this time. Peter probably looking at the ground responds, "Yes Lord you know I do." Jesus probably smiles and says "Feed my lambs." Jesus asks again "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter responds choking back the sobs "You know I do". Jesus tells him, "Feed my sheep." The third time Jesus asks Peter "Simon son of John, do you love me?" The Scriptures say that Peter was upset and grieved when he responded. In my mind I see Peter no longer able to hold back the tears and sobs. He almost groans the response "Lord you know everything; You know I love you." Jesus tells him "Feed my sheep." When Peter said to Jesus "Lord you know everything." I think he was trying to say to Christ "I won't say it, the others will think I'm bragging again, but I want you to know that I really would die for you now. I pray that you know that I am willing to do so and please someday tell me you know I would." Jesus honored Peter's unspoken request immediately.

John 21:18

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou wouldest not.

He was telling Peter that he would die in the same manner as He Himself did. How you ask does this show Peter was the first Pope? When Jesus told Peter to feed His lambs and sheep. He was in essence saying lambs and sheep make up the entire flock. I am leaving soon and won't be here to tend my flock. When I go I want you, Peter, to be my shepherd on earth.

A common response or objection you are sure to hear and one a friend asked me is "Doesn't the fact that Paul opposed Peter to his face, in Gal. 2:11, show that Peter wasn't the Pope?"

Galatians 2:11

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.

If the Pope is Christ's representative on earth as you believe, doesn't his position make him above reproach?" my friend asked. "It certainly does not. It would be the duty and responsibility of the bishops to censure the Pope for unacceptable conduct. Censure is the term used by the Catholic Church when an official reprimand for unacceptable conduct is given. Which is what Paul did in the case of Peter.", I replied. There are other Scriptures that support Peter's prominence among the Apostles. The Father revealed to Peter alone that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of God.

Matthew 16:16-17

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.

Peter presided over the apostles when they chose Matthias to take Judas' place as an apostle.

Acts 1:15-16,20

And in those days Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples, and said, (the number of names together were about an hundred and twenty,) Men and brethren, this scripture must needs have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost by the mouth of David spake before concerning Judas, which was guide to them that took Jesus. ... For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take.

There are many more scriptures supporting Peter's role as head of the Church. Ready to gain more experience using your Bible? Go for it. I really am getting tired about now.

It was Peter who judged Ananias and his wife Sapphira guilty of lying to the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:1-10). It was revealed to Peter that the Gospel was to be brought to all mankind not only the Jews (Acts 10). Scripture tells us that the apostles and elders debated a long time trying to determine if the non-Jewish believers had to be circumcised or not. Peter addressed the group and his decision silenced the discussion (Acts 15:5-12). Why is Peter always listed first when the apostles are listed if he wasn’t considered the leader? The remaining apostles are randomly listed. (Matt 10:2, Mark 3:16, Luke 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13) Peter addresses the people after the Holy Spirit descends on the disciples (Acts 2:14). Peter makes the first conversions(Acts 2:37-41). Why did the angel specifically mention Peter when he told the women to tell his disciples that Christ had risen? (Mark 16:7) When Peter and John ran to Christ's empty tomb why didn't John enter the tomb first? He, being younger, was at the tomb first but waited until Peter entered the tomb before he did (John 20:3-9). When Jesus appeared to the Apostles, why did he appear first to Cephas (Peter) then the twelve? (1 Cor. 15:5) Why was Peter the first to work a miracle? (Acts 3:5-9) Peter was the first apostle to raise the dead. (Acts 9:40).

The Church at the time of the Apostles and the Early Fathers taught that Peter was the first Pope and the Bishops were sucessors of the Apostles.

Early Church Fathers on the succession of Peter and the Apostles

Pope Clement I [A.D. 80] (Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 should not be confused with Paul’s letters to the Corinthians).

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry."

Irenaeus of Lyons [A.D. 189] (Against Heresies 3:3:1)

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the Tradition of the Apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about"

Firmilian [A.D. 253] (collected in Cyprian's Letters 74[75]):17).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18] . Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter"

Augustine [A.D. 397] (Against the Letter of Mani Called 'The Foundation' 4:5)

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church's] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15-17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called 'Catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house.

from catholic apologetics primer

December 15, 2003

Papal Infallibility

Misconceptions?

Non-Catholics often confuse the pope’s gift of ‘infallibility’ with ‘impeccability’. They think the Catholic Church is claiming her Popes are sinless or that the Pope is claiming inspiration from God for every pronouncement he makes. This is not the case. In fact, infallibility is attached to his office, not his person. It is a protective gift, not a creative one introducing new revelation. Peter Kreeft observes that the Church should not be mistaken for a political body because it is an organic body and no organic body can be a democracy. It must have a head. Christ gave the Church a head.

What is the gift of infallibility?

The dogma of infallibility was formally proclaimed at the First Vatican Council in 1870. There are several requirements for a dogmatic, papal infallible pronouncement: (1) The pronouncement must be made by the lawful successor to Peter. (2) The subject matter must be in the area of faith and morals. (3) The pope must be speaking ex cathedra, that is from the very seat and office of Peter. In this way he must be specifically intending to proclaim a doctrine, binding the entire Church to its assent. If one or more of these elements is missing, there is no infallible pronouncement. Most "examples" of papal "errors" emerge when critics ignore the necessity of these three points. (Madrid, pp. 135-136, Pope Fiction)

Biblical Basis and Tradition

The infallibility of the pope is certainly a doctrine that has been more clearly understood over time, but is not one that was invented in 1870. It is clear in Scripture that Christ promised the protection of the Holy Spirit, saying, "I will ask the Father and he will give you another Paraclete—to be with you always; the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot accept, since it neither sees him nor recognizes him because he remains with you and will be within you . . . . the Paraclete, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send will remind you of all that I have told you" (John 14: 16-17, 26). "When the Spirit of truth comes He will guide you to all truth . . ." (John 16:14). Peter shares the gift of infallibility (a negative gift in the sense it keeps him from teaching error on matters of faith and morals) with the other apostles and their successors, the bishops. The "pope" (an Italian word meaning "father") and the bishops together are the magisterium of the Church, that is, the teaching authority. As Jesus said, "He who listens to you, listens to me" (Luke 10:16); "all that you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven" (Mt. 18:18). When bishops of the world meet together summoned by the papacy, they meet in ecumenical council, which if held at the Vatican is referred to as a Vatican council. They are usually called infrequently only at times of pivotal or critical moments in the life of the Church. The Council of Jerusalem about 50 A.D. discussed in Acts15 was a precursor of later councils. After that Council made its decision to not require Gentile Christians to be circumcised as desired by the Judaizers, it wrote to the Church that " . .it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden . . ." The first formal ecumenical council was that of Nicaea in 325 A.D., which condemned the Arian heresy and declared that Christ was consubstantial with the Father. The Nestorian and Pelagian heresies were condemned at Ephesus in 431 A.D. and Mary was formally given the title "Mother of God." Thus Councils are called to decide matters of doctrine and discipline for the whole Church. It was St. Paul who described the Church as the "pillar and foundation of truth" in 1 Timothy 3:15. The Second Vatican Council’s Constitution of the Church puts it this way: "Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they can nevertheless proclaim Christ’s doctrine infallibly. This is so, even when they are dispersed around the world, provided that while maintaining the bond of unity among themselves and with Peter’s successor, and while teaching authentically on a matter of faith or morals, they concur in a single viewpoint as the one which must be held conclusively."

Authority in Virtue of the Office

Infallibility belongs to the Pope in a special way since Christ gave him primacy (Mt. 16:17-10 "you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it.") Only Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven (see Isaiah 22) and only Peter is declared the rock (see Jn 1:42 where the Aramaic term Cephas or rock is given to him by Jesus). This primacy is seen in John 21: 15-17, where Jesus instructs Peter as chief shepherd of the flock, his Church, to"feed my lambs…tend my sheep." [Note: The Greek word for "tend," poimanao, means "to rule." The same Greek word is used in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, 12:5, and 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus himself.] Together with the apostles he enjoys the power to "bind and loose" on earth and in heaven. Vatican II puts it this way: " [infallibility] is something he enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith. (Luke 22:32 "…but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers."), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Doctrinal Understanding over Time

The doctrine is one that developed as the Church got a clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the bishops and the primacy of the Pope. St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage writing about 256 A.D. said, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine reflected this same Tradition when he said at , "Rome has spoken; the cause is concluded." In 433 A.D. Pope Sixtus III declared that assenting to the Bishop of Rome’s decision on matters of faith and morals was as assent to Peter, "who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail." Leslie Rumble and Charles M. Carty, the famous radio priests of the 1930’s, declared that: "Before the definition of infallibility in 1870, the Popes did not know they were infallible with the same full certainty of faith as that possessed by later Popes. But they were infallible in fact. The gift of papal infallibility was essential to the Church, not the definition of the gift. You wonder why was it defined only in 1870. But definitions are not given unnecessarily. If no discussion arises on a given point, and no one disputes it, there is no need for a definition. But in the seventeenth century the question of the Pope’s doctrinal authority came more and more to the front, until in 1870, the Vatican Council was asked to settle this question once and for all. The time had come for the Church to know herself fully on this point" (Rumble and Carty, Radio Replies 3: 95).

Infallible papal pronouncements are few because they could not be made without merely endorsing earlier infallible pronouncements from other sources, namely ecumenical councils or the unanimous teaching of the Early Church Fathers. An example of this would be Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Humanae Vitae. This encyclical on human life does not meet the strict requirements for an infallible pronouncement, but it nonetheless teaches infallible truths because they can be enunciated in a document that is not itself infallible.

Testimony of the Early Church Fathers

Although the two radio priests stated that the early Popes did not know they were infallible with the same certainty of faith as later Popes, some might believe, that the popes, as well as others, did understand their own authority in the Church. The following passages are a testimony to this:

Pope Clement I: "Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us… Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret… If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [God] through us [that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger… You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy…" (Letter to the Corinthians 1:1, 58:2-59:1,63:2[A.D.80]).

As men received clearer understanding of the teaching authority of the church and the primacy of the Pope, they also got a clearer understanding of the Pope’s infallibility. For example, quoting from the early Church Fathers:

Ignatius of Antioch: "… to the Church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

Cyprian of Carthage: "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?"

Cyprian of Carthage: "the Lord says to Peter; ’I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven’ [Matt 16:18-19])…On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. inDouche, the others were also what Peter was [i.e. apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Christ instructed the Church to preach everything he taught (Matt. 28:19-20 "Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nation . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…"), and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit (John. 16:13). That command and Jesus’ promise guarantee that the Church will never fall away from His teachings, even if an individual Catholic might. There is no guarantee that popes won’t sin or give bad examples. What infallibility does do is prevent a pope from formally teaching as the "truth" something that is not. It does not help him know, what is true, he has to do his homework the way we all do to find this out. "It doesn’t even guarantee that the pope, when he does teach, will be as effective or persuasive, or as clear as he should be in what he teaches (Madrid, p. 138, Pope Fiction)." A pope’s private personal or theological opinions are not infallible.

Many incorrectly think that the popes are given a special power that helps them in teaching infallibly. This is confused with "inspiration". "While inspiration gives information, infallibility protects information. It doesn’t provide the Pope with the information he needs to teach, that comes from his own efforts to study and understand the deposit of Faith. It does make sure that when he formally teaches the doctrines of Faith, he’ll do so without error. The only pope who was inspired and who received revelation from God to be given to the whole Church was Peter. All the other popes who followed Peter and sat in his chair, had to do their teaching the hard way— studying and then learning it first!" (Madrid, pp. 139-140, Pope Fiction).

Cases against Infallibility?

Now let’s turn to history and point out some favorite cases cited against papal infallibility.

What about Peter’s conduct at Antioch, certainly this would be a perfect example of papal infallibility being non-existent.

Remember Peter’s conduct at Antioch, when he refused to eat with the Gentile Christians in order to not offend certain Jews (Gal. 2:11-16). Paul reprimanded him, not because of his lack of papal infallibility, but because Peter’s actions had to do with matters of discipline, not with issues of faith or morals. It was Peter’s actions that were being brought into question, not his teaching. Paul acknowledged that Peter was well aware of the correct teaching (Gal. 2:15-16), the problem was that Peter wasn’t living up to his own teachings! "Another example of this is found in the Gospel of Matthew, when Jesus points out the Jewish leaders and reminds all that they possessed a God-given authority to teach, even though many of them were corrupt. Jesus later calls them ‘hypocrites’ and ‘a brood of vipers’ but that they nonetheless had an office with authority. Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples saying, "‘The Scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore do, and observe all the things, whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.’" Through God's providence there have only been a few bad apples in the papacy, these bad popes stand out so much because they are so rare. Even so, infallibility has nothing to do with sin. Thankfully the overwhelming majority of popes have been very holy men. Some unfortunately, were very heavy sinners, who lived horrible lives, but they were prevented by this grace of the Holy Spirit from formally teaching error to the Church." (Madrid, pp. 132-33, 139, Pope Fiction)

"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)

"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t. Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).

"How can the Catholic Church claim infallibility when it officially condemned Galileo for heresy when he declared that the Earth revolves around the sun? Add to this fact that Galileo was cruelly imprisoned and force to recant under pains of torture. Modern science show that Galileo was right and the ‘infallible pope’ was wrong." (Madrid, p. 178, Pope Fiction)

"Galileo was a brilliant physicist and astronomer who’s heliocentric theories were contrary to the understanding of the Church of his day, true, but his ideas were also contrary to the Ptolemaic school of thought which was accepted by all contemporary scientists of his day." (Madrid, p. 179, Pope Fiction) Interestingly another scientific peer, Johannes Kepler, a Protestant, was vehemently condemned 10 years earlier by a Protestant University of Tubingen, for advocating the very same theory, and we don’t hear the same blown-out-of proportion stories, that Galileo has led us to. Actually for many years, Galileo was held in high regard by many Roman officials, and his work received high honors from three successive popes. So why was he condemned?

"First of all, is that Galileo’s heliocentric theory, although completely opposed by theologians, wasn’t the real source of his difficulties with the Church. Actually it was a presumption to teach that God was merely accidental, and not substantial. Galileo confused truths with scientific discoveries by saying that in the Bible ‘are found propositions which, when taken literally, are false; that Holy Writ out of regard for the incapacity of the people, expresses itself inexactly…’. Thus it was Galileo’s attack on theology that brought about the heated response from the Church." (Madrid, pp. 181-82, Pope Fiction) Even with all of this the Church neither violated nor compromised the doctrine of infallibility. Remember that in order for a pope to exercise the charism of infallibility, he must offically be defining a doctrine relating to faith or morals—the pope is not infallible when it comes to science or any other field of thought, furthermore, the other two conditions to pronounce an infallible doctrine were not present.

As Frs. Rumble and Carty in Radio Replies explain: "All his [Galileo] arguments [of the day] gave probability only. In the present state of general education we all know that there is no doubt on the subject, and that the movement of the Earth is in no way opposed to Sacred Scripture, rightly understood. But people did not know that then, and they were not ready for the new knowledge. It’s general publication could result only in widespread disturbance due to a lack of preparatory knowledge . . . the conservatism of the Church was prudence itself in the face of these novelties not yet proved."

Wasn't Galileo imprisoned and brutally tortured to get a confession from him? He was imprisoned but there is no evidence that he was tortured because he provided a retraction of his original statements against the Church regarding his scientific theories.

"The Galileo story when wrongly understood seems to stain the credibility of the Church, but when understood correctly, it proves nothing, except that the Catholic Church is very serious in her efforts to safeguard the flock from error or scandal. Throughout the Galileo ordeal, the Pope Urban VIII, was not acting in his capacity of teacher, but of protective guardian. So as disturbing as this case was it doesn’t conflict with the Catholic teaching of infallibility." (Madrid, pp. 188-89, Pope Fiction).

"What about when Pope Sixtus V issued a botched revision of the Latin Vulgate Bible. This edition was so filled with errors, omissions and deformities of the text, that it was hastily recalled after his death by embarrassed Roman cardinals. But the damage was done. Sixtus V had formally taught that the defective edition was to be the only Bible used for the entire Church. If that isn’t a perfect example of a pope fulfilling all the necessary ingredients for teaching ‘infallibly’, nothing else in papal history is. The pope clearly taught error." (Madrid, p. 242, Pope Fiction)

Sixtus V reigned as pope from 1585-1590. He has been described as a "brilliant leader in political and ecclesiastical arenas, a tireless innovator in agriculture, engineering and law, he effectively enacted and enforced laws, created an impressive aqueduct system, reformed clergy and the Church’s liturgical customs, tackled building projects, drained the swamps near Rome to eliminate the siege of malaria, spent large amounts of money on charitable works and missions, and oversaw the completion of the St. Peter’s Basilica." Unfortunately he had an ego to match and this got him into serious trouble when a revision of the Latin Vulgate edition of the holy Bible was begun. "Historian Francis Gasquet explains the background of the Vulgate: ‘The Latin text of the Sacred Scriptures had existed from the earliest times of Christianity.’ The translators were unknown to St. Augustine and St. Jerome; but the former says that the old Latin version had certainly come ‘from the first days of the Faith’, and the latter that it ‘ had helped strengthen the Faith of the infant Church.’ Made and copied without any official supervision these western texts soon became corrupt or doubtful."

Since the Church was much threatened by Protestant doctrines that were fast appearing throughout much of Europe and since there were numerous editions of the Vulgate in circulation, Pope Sixtus recognized that the Church required best biblical translation possible to meet Protestant arguments. He acted forthrightly in assembling a team of scholars and linguists, headed by eminent theologians like Cardinal Robert Bellarmine and others. They compiled as many Greek manuscripts as could be assembled and finished the revision process by the end of 1588. But apparently overcome by pride, the pope found the ten thousand readings they had diligently chosen inadequate, and angrily announced he would personally revise the Vulgate. He declared, ‘We, weighing the importance of the matter, and considering carefully the great and singular privilege we hold of God, and our true and legitimate succession from Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles . . . Are the proper and specially constituted Person to decide this whole question."

Ill equipped for the task, Sixtus eliminated all the work done by the former commission, and started fresh. Unfortunately his abilities to translate, edit and make all the appropriate decisions were beyond his capabilities and the result was an error filled translation presented to the cardinals in early 1590.

Cardinal Bellarmine and Fr. Toledo, another Jesuit scholar revealed their fears "…that by such mutilation he [sixtus] was laying himself open to the attacks of the heretics, and was giving more serious scandal to the faithful than anything else the pope could do . . . " If Sixtus had formally promulgated this distorted version, it would have allowed a strong case to be argued against the doctrine of papal infallibility since the Pope would have fulfilled the three requirements layed out by Vatican I for an infallible teaching. But the weight of opposition was sufficient, thanks to Bellarmine and others, to stope the Pope from releasing it. Still, he worked on correction of typographical errors with the apparent intention of releasing a corrected version soon. Patrick Madrid writes, "Expectation was at a boiling point. The news in Rome had it that the official promulgation would happen any day. Advance copies of the new Vulgate had been bound and delivered to all the cardinals in Rome along with advance copies of the bull officially publishing it. Everything was ready for the pope to promulgate the new version. Nothing could stop him." But at the last moment Sixtus, whose health and vigor were never questioned, took to his bed, dying on August 27, 1590 after a brief illness. The Holy Spirit's promise to guide the Church to all truth seems to have been fulfilled again. "Only God knows if Sixtus’ sudden death was dramatic proof of divine intervention-- the evidence that papal infallibility isn’t just a Catholic idea, but that God Himself will prevent, by death if necessary, the pope from teaching an error formally to the Church." (Madrid, pps. 242-51, Pope Fiction).

The reason for the gift

"The rejection of papal infallibility by non-Catholics stems from their views of the Church. They do not think Christ established a visible church, which means they do not believe in a hierarchy of bishops headed by the pope. It should be enough to point out that the New Testament shows the apostles setting up, after the Master’s instruction, a visible organization. Every Christian in the early centuries until the Reformation took for granted, that Christ set up an on-going organization" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility). Doubtless, our Lord also set up a means, once he ascended into heaven, by which the teachings he provided could be preserved.

"All this was accomplished through the apostolic succession of the popes, and the preservation of the Christian message, was guaranteed through the gift of infallibility. If the Church is to do what Christ said it would do, and not do what he said it would not do, such as have the gates of hell prevail against it, it must be able to teach infallibly The Church cannot teach heresy, or it ceases to be Jesus’ church. As Paul stated "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". The Pope must be able to teach rightly. For men to be saved, they must know what is to be believed. And that is why papal infallibility exists" (Catholic Answers, p. 3, Papal Infallibility).

from catholic faith and reason

December 15, 2003

What’s the Deal With Papal Infallibility?

By Matthew A. C. Newsome

A sample conversation between a curious Protestant and his Catholic friend:

Protestant: Hey, I just read that the Pope has only been infallible since 1870. What is that all about?

Catholic: Oh yeah, that’s true. See, before the authority of the Catholic Church was in the Magesterium, which is all of the bishops teaching together. But in 1870, the Pope got tired of arguing with the bishops, so he proclaimed himself infallible so he wouldn’t have to argue with them anymore and they would have to do what he said.

Protestant: Oh, so now you have to do whatever the Pope says?

Catholic: No, not really. The real authority is with the Magesterium, like I said. We don’t need to do everything the Pope tells us—I mean what if he told us to all wear burlap? We wouldn’t have to do that. So it’s up to us really what we decide to do.

Protestant: Oh, ok. Thanks for explaining that.

Now many of you reading the above conversation will no doubt think something doesn’t sound quite right. And you would be correct! Our well meaning Catholic friend above very inaccurately described Papal Infallibility, but there is enough truth in his statements to be confusing to a lot of people, and potentially damaging if we are trying to explain our faith to others. So what do Catholics really believe about Papal Infallibility and where does that doctrine come from?

Let’s start by seeing just how much we know about infallibility itself. Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism and Fundamentalism, uses this example. Let’s say that the pope is infallible, not only in matters of faith and morals, but also in trigonometry. If he were presented a sheet of paper with 100 math problems on it, what is the least number he would get correct? If you said 100, you may have a good grasp of math, but not infallibility. The correct answer is zero. He could leave the page entirely blank. You see, infallibility is a negative protection. It prevents the pope from getting the wrong answer, but does not enable him to know the correct answer. He would have to learn trigonometry on his own. If he did not do his homework, he would have to leave each answer blank.

But, as we know, the pope is only infallible when teaching on matters of faith and morals as leader of the Christian world. He has to learn these things on his own, just as we would, through study of scripture, Church documents, the writings of the Church Fathers, theologians, and much time spent in prayer. He must come to his own conclusions—they are not given to him by revelation. But when he comes to these conclusions in matters of faith and morals, he is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching in error.

Infallibility does not mean that the Pope is free of sin. This is called impeccability, and Catholics do not believe that the Pope is impeccable. But many will try to prove that the Pope is not infallible by citing examples of Popes who have fallen into sin. With 2000 years of Popes to choose from, the amount of bad apples they can cite is amazingly small, but it still misses the point. Infallibility is absence of error, not of sin. Popes are human beings, and can certainly sin.

So why do we believe in infallibility at all? Well, a lot of it goes back to the Scriptures themselves. Since many people who will be questioning Papal authority are from Protestant churches that believe in sola scriptura (that the Bible alone is the only guide for our faith), it will be helpful to know where in the Scriptures this notion can be found. Citing other sources will do no good if the person you are talking with only recognizes the authority of the Bible.

There are several Petrine verses, so called because they deal with Peter’s authority in the Church. The most well known is from Matthew 16:17-19. This is after Peter makes his profession of faith that Jesus is the Messiah. “Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter [Kepa, which means “rock”], and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you [plural] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’”

This verse sets Peter apart from the other disciples by changing his name from Simon to Peter, meaning Rock. He then promises to make him the foundation of his Church. He also gives him alone the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which signifies his authority. Many non-Catholic Christians will argue that the second “rock” in this verse refer not to Peter but to his profession of faith. Simple grammar argues otherwise. The phrase “this rock” would have to refer to the immediately preceding noun, which is Peter. His profession of faith was two verses earlier. Again, let’s use an example supplied by Keating. In the sentence, “I have a car and a truck, and it is blue,” which one is blue? Obviously it is the truck. It would be even more clear if the reference to the car was two sentences earlier.

Others say that in the original Greek the phrase reads, “you are Petros (meaning little rock), and upon this petra (meaning big rock) I will build my church.” Therefore the second rock could not be Peter. The problem with this is that “Petros” was only used in Greek because it is a masculine form of the feminine “petra” and therefore suitable as a man’s name. But Jesus was not speaking Greek. In Aramaic, the language Jesus would have used, the word in both cases is “kepa,” which is neuter like our English word “rock.” So it would have read, “you are Kepa, and upon this kepa I will build my church.” No difference exists until it is translated into Greek.

Other Biblical examples can also be cited. Let’s examine a few of these. Look to John 21:15-17. Here, right at the end of the Gospel, Jesus charges Simon Peter to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Look in Luke 22:32. This is right before Jesus foretells Peter’s denial, and Jesus tells him, “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back [after the denials] you must strengthen your brothers.”

Christ also told his apostles to go preach the gospel and promised the protection of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13). That promise ensures that the Church will never fall away from the teachings of Christ (1 Tim 3:15). We as Catholic believe in the Apostolic succession, that is, that these promises made by Jesus were for all of time, and were therefore passed on from the original Apostles, the first bishops, to their successors for all generations, down to our own. This applies also to Peter, the first Pope. To believe otherwise would mean that the Church today has no authority at all, nor did any church after the last Apostle died. We would have nowhere to turn to for truth.

This protection means that when all of the bishops of the Church gather together at an Ecumenical Council and teach on a matter of faith or morals in union with each other, they cannot be wrong. We call this teaching body of bishops the Magesterium. We believe that this Magesterium is infallible in its teachings.

However, we also believe that the Pope alone among the bishops has a special infallibility. Although not formally defined until 1870, this was a notion that was held even by early Christians. As the primacy of the Papal office became clearer to the growing Church, so did Papal infallibility. As early as 256, Cyprian of Carthage wrote, “Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that to assent to the Bishop of Rome’s decision is to assent to Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith cannot fail. Augustine of Hippo even said, “Rome has spoken; the case is closed.” So even though they did not have the defined term “papal infallibility” as we do now, they understood it in its practice.

This also means that all Popes, not just those since 1870, have been infallible—they just did not have as full an understanding of their own infallibility as those after 1870 did. So why was it only defined in 1870? Well, traditionally in the Church only defines a doctrine when that doctrine is called into question. The Church does not “make up” new doctrine. It cannot add to the deposit of faith that was left to us by the Apostles after Pentecost. But it can come to a clearer understanding of that faith, and 2000 years of study and prayer have led us to a much clearer notion of what Christ intended our Church to be than those very first Christians could have had.

Throughout the life of the Church, there have been various individuals or groups who would question a church teaching. This would lead to debate, and often even heretical teachings. Sometimes these conflicts caused issues to arise that no one even thought of before! It is during times such as these that the Church makes an official definition, to close the matter. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, after the Reformation and during the Enlightenment, the Pope’s authority was called more and more into question. This is why, in 1870, at the first Vatican council, it was decided to formally define the Pope’s special infallibility.

The Catechism of the Catholic church teaches us that, “’The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful—who confirms his brethren in the faith—he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,’ above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine ‘for belief as being divinely revealed,’ and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions ‘must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.’ This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself” (892).

So you can see from this that the Pope’s every word is not infallible, nor any documents he may have written prior to becoming Pope or as a private theologian. In these he is just as fallible as any other learned man. But when, in his office as Vicar of Christ, he “proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals,” then we are called by our faith to obey. This faith stems from a faith in Jesus Christ, who made Peter the head of His Church on earth, who promised these charisms to him, who promised to stay with his Church forever and that “the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” Our faith in Christ would lead us to obey the authority of His Church, which is one, holy, catholic and apostolic.

To read the Catholic Encyclopedia article on Infallibility, go on line to:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Bibliography:

Catechism of the Catholic Church. The United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Doubleday, New York; 1995.

Keating, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism. Ignatius Press, San Francisco; 1988.

The New American Bible. St. Joseph Edition. Catholic Book Publishing Co, New York; 1991.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

from Turris Fortis

December 15, 2003

i need links cmom

Sign In

Ref. Section:church Authority/apostolic Succession

Recommended Posts

phatcatholic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

cmotherofpirl

Link to comment

Share on other sites

phatcatholic

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in