Papal authority

[dlb2007]

Scripture

In the Old Testament When God established his covenant with the nation of Israel. He provided for a living continuing authority in the mosaic priesthood (see 2 Chr 19:11; Mal 2:7) this authority did not end after the Old Testament was written, rather It continued as the safeguard and authentic interpreter of sacred Scripture.

When Christ established his church, the new Israel. He set up a living, continuing authority to teach, govern and sanctify his name. This living authority is called apostolic, because it begun with the 12 apostles and continued with their successors.

It was this apostolic authority, that would preserve and authentically interpret the revelation of Jesus Christ this same apostolic authority, determined the canon of the Bible and will preserve the teachings of Jesus Christ in all the fullness and uncorrupted from error until the end of time.

Among the 12 Apostles St. Peter is clearly the head

Matthew 16: 13 – 19

“I also say to you. You are Peter (rock), and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. And whatever you loose on earth shall be loosened in heaven”

Jesus changes Simon's name to Peter, which means rock, our lord says, this rock will be God's way of preserving the church from corruption until end of time. Our Lord new St. Peter would be dead by 70AD therefore Christ must've intended the office of Peter to last until the end of time.

St Peter is given the keys to the kingdom of heaven. This is an awesome gift to nobody else does Christ give this ruling power.

I would like to ask all to take a moment to quietly reflect and meditate on this unique privilege granted to St. Peter.

Some people argue that Jesus is not building his church on Peter by pointing out that in the Greek text the word he used to Peter is petros, a masculine noun. Petros means small stone, while Petra means massive rock many claim therefore that the massive rock (Petra) upon which Christ will build his church must not refer to Peter The small stone (petros) but rather to Peter's profession of faith or to Jesus.

However, Jesus spoke Aramaic, which leaves no room for the Greek distinction. in Aramaic The word for rock is kepha. What Christ said was “you are kepha (rock), and upon this kepha (rock). I will build my church.

In Aramaic, the identification of Peter as the rock is clear.

Why does the Greek use two different words for Peter and the rock?

Because the Greek word for rock, Petra is feminine. It would not be appropriate to give a man a feminine name (imagine the confusion that would bring) so the translator gave Petra a masculine ending and rendered it petros. Since petros was a pre-existing word meaning small stone. Some of the original wordplay was lost, but no early church father, including those who spoke Greek as their mother tongue made a distinction between Peter and the rock on which Christ built his church.

Jesus is drawing this image of the keys from Isaiah 22: 19 – 22
from this context. At least three concepts are included

1. The keys are a symbol of the authority and the chief official. The Prime Minister of the kingdom of David

2. the Prime Minister is a father figure. Remember Pope comes from an Italian word for papa – “father”

3. the office implies dynastic succession. The office of Prime Minister continued, as long as the kingdom of David continued. Catholics believe that Christ is the king and the pope is the Prime Minister of his kingdom. The church, Christ is the head of the church and the Pope is his earthly representative.

Why would Jesus give this tremendous authority to St. Peter, and not intend for it to be passed on?

If the early Christians needed an authoritative leader later Christians would need one even more after all. Many of the early Christians heard the gospel from Christ himself and knew the apostles personally. After all the apostles died, the church would have greater need of the power of the keys. When enemies would try to corrupt the teachings of Christ.

Although all the apostels as a group were given the power to bind and loose in mat 18:18 St. Peter received this power, individually at the time he was given the keys. Jesus would not have guaranteed to back up the doctrine and and teachings of St. Peter and his successes unless he was also going to protect them from false doctrine in their official capacities of shepherds of the church.

Luke 22 : 31 -- 32 and John 21: 15 – 17

In the passage from Luke, Jesus prays that Peter's faith would not fail to in turn would strengthen the other disciples. in the passage from St. John Jesus clearly makes Peter the shepherd of his church. So St. Peter is the rock on which Christ builds his church. He is given the keys of the kingdom, and he is made shepherd of Christ's flock: solid biblical evidence that Jesus made St. Pete The first pope. the popes are Christ's vicars, the visible and earthly heads of Christ's Church, while Christ is the invisible and supreme head.

Acts 15 gives an account of the first church council. The Council of Jerusalem called at the request of St. Paul. This council met to decide whether Gentiles have to follow the law of Moses as well as the law of Christ. Notice that there was much discussion among the apostles, and presbyters. However, after Peter spoke, the assembly fell silent his statement ended the discussion. this council, obviously considers St. Peters authority final.

I also encourage all of you to read the Gospels, where St. Peter is unmistakably presented as a leader among the apostles. Where is St. James the less is not read the first 12 chapters of acts which describe the early church in Jerusalem. Every chapter except six and seven, which describes St. Stephen's martyrdom show's St. Peter in a leadership position, while St. James appears only briefly and never in a leadership role in Galatians 1:18-19 we are told that paul went to Jerusalem. After his conversion specifically to confer with Peter. He stayed with Peter 15 days. In contrast, paul visited James only briefly during this time.

At the Council of Jerusalem in acts 15. It was St. Peter's statements that settle the serious doctrinal dispute. That was the reason the Council, as we saw earlier, Saint Peter's statements silenced The assembly of presbyters and apostles, including St. James.

We know from church history that St. James was a bishop of Jerusalem. And as acts 21:15 -- 25 describes. He was concerned for Jewish Christians in Jerusalem, who felt the ancient customs threatened by the great number of Gentile converts. This background explains why he St. James makes The concluding remarks at the Council and asked Gentiles to respect certain Jewish practices.

People are grasping at straws if they claim that acts 15 proves that James. Instead of Peter was the head of the church. Some people often cite

1 Peter 5:1 to claim that Peter was not the head of the church, they note that Peter in addressing some elders (church leaders) calls himself a fellow elder. they therefore conclude that Peter had no more authority than any of the elder. But this is just like the president of the United States saying. My fellow Americans.

This would certainly not indicate that the president has no more authority than an ordinary citizen.

As an apostle St. Peter certainly considers his authority to be greater than that of an ordinary elder. After all, Saint Peter goes on to admonish these fellow elders (1 peter 5:2-4) as one having authority over them. In calling them fellow elders, St. Peter is simply acknowledging the obvious like himself They are also church leaders. to insist that Peter as an apostle had no greater authority than an ordinary elder shows how little they appreciated what Scripture stays about the great office of apostel.

Many people quote, Gal. 2:11-14 as well, attempting to show that Peter was not infallible. And that Paul did not consider him the head of the church. This position is not supportable. first of all, if they think Peter was not infallible. Why do they accept his two letters as inspired, and therefore infallible? We must accept that all the apostles were infallible. After the apostel's died the popes, individually, and the bishops as a group in Union with the pope are infallible.

St. Paul correcting St. Peter for weak behavior is no different from St. Catherine of Siena, correcting weak Pope's in the Middle Ages. There was no doctrine involved St. Peter himself had settled the doctrinal point at the Council of Jerusalem. St. Paul corrected St. Peter for being unwilling to confront the Judaizers from Jerusalem. Remember, St. Paul was among those who fell silent at the Council of Jerusalem. Once St. Peter spoke.

Please note that the early Church always accepted the Bishop of Rome as head of the church. In about 80 AD the church at Corinth, deposed its lawful leaders. The fourth bishop of Rome, Pope Clement I was called to settle the matter even though St. John the apostle was still alive, and much closer to Corinth than Rome.

St. Irenaeus, who was taught by St. Polycarp, a disciple of St. John the apostle stresses that Christians must be united to the Church of Rome. In order to maintain the apostolic tradition. He then lists all the bishops of Rome, up to this time he presents this teaching as something taken for granted by Orthodox Christians.

For 250 years the Roman emperors tried to destroy Christianity through persecution. in the first 200 years of Christianity. Every pope, but one was martyred. the Romans Certainly knew who the head of the church was.

A Roman emperor’s greatest fear was a rival to the throne. Nevertheless, the Emperor Decius (249-251AD) one of the harshest persecutors of the early Christian church made the following remark “I would rather receive news of a rival to the throne than of another bishop of Rome” Decius said this after he had executed Pope Fabian in 250AD.

Suppose that an owner of a company had called all the employees together and announced that he was going to be gone for a while. During his absence he was going to give the keys of the company to John Doe and that whatever John Doe commanded would be backed by him, would you have any doubt that John Doe was going to be in charge of the company while the boss was away? Of course not, this is exactly what is described in mathew 16.

[peter griffin]

Of the numerous doctrines Roman Catholics must believe under pain of grievous sin, there are two upon which the entire religion is dependent for its continued existence. Without these two foundational doctrines, the Roman Catholic religion comes crashing down to the ground of irrelevancy. In my Catholic childhood, I learned these two doctrines before I could read or write. To the question, “Which is the one true Church founded by Jesus Christ?” I learned as a little shaver to answer, “The Catholic Church is the one true Church founded by Christ.” To the second question, “And upon what did Jesus found His Church?” my response was, “Jesus founded His Church on the rock of Peter who was the first pope.”



When the Lord Jesus saved me at the advanced age of 52, it became obvious very soon thereafter that there is something radically wrong with those two foundational doctrines.

And, since the first - the true Church claim - rests squarely on the allegation that Peter was ordained to be its first pope, it is quite appropriate to seek in the Scriptures proof that Jesus really did give Peter such an assignment. There, in the inerrant Word of God, we have every right to expect to find Peter’s appointment clearly set forth, established as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. What we do find, though, is what follows.



The English word, “pope,” comes from the Latin word, “papa,” which means “father.”

But our Lord told His disciples, (and us through them), “…call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. (Matthew 23:9) This had to be meant in a spiritual sense since we all have earthly fathers, while our heavenly Father is a spirit to be worshiped in spirit and truth. (John 4:24) And based on this admonition from Jesus, there shouldn’t even be a Catholic priesthood much less a papacy, for all Catholic priests are addressed as, “Father.” More on that later.



On another occasion, when His Apostles were disputing about leadership matters, Our Lord called them together for a disclosure of His organizational plan. He said, “Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. But it shall NOT BE SO AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant.” (Matthew 20:25-27) From this, it is clear Jesus was strongly opposed to any “prince” or “princes” exercising dominion over His flock.



Historically, it was not until the 3rd century, nearly 200 years after our Lord’s return to His heavenly throne, that a bishop of Rome – one of hundreds of independent bishops existing at that time – cited Matthew 16:18 as evidence Peter had been appointed bishop of Rome and head of the Church. This was a brazen grab for power by Calixtus 1 whose interpretation of Matthew 16:18 contradicted that of the leading theologians of his day. That grab for power died an ignominious death when Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, and others, called Calixtus 1 a “usurper.” From our vantage point 2000 years later, it is unimpeachable proof that Rome lies when it claims the office of the papacy has been in existence from the time of Peter.

Remember, if you will, the episode at Caesarea Philippi. There, Jesus asked His Apostles, “Who do YE say that I am?” It was Peter who responded for the twelve with this statement of FACT: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Then said our Lord, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art PETER, and upon this ROCK I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” (Matthew 16:17, 18) In English, Latin, Aramaic, and other languages the words Peter and rock are entirely different. Unfortunately for Roman Catholics whose beliefs rest heavily on the papacy, Greek is a far more precise language.



In Greek, Peter is petros, masculine gender, defined as a small rock, one that can be picked up and skipped across the surface of a pond. It is a derivative of the root word,

petra, feminine gender, defined as massive foundation rock. If we insert Greek definitions for petros and petra, what our Lord said in Matthew 16:18 reads like this: “Thou art Little Rock, and upon this Massive Foundation Rock I will build my Church.”



To the most respected theologians of the early Church, the Massive Foundation Rock of

Matthew 16:18 was not Peter, but Peter’s statement of FACT – “Thou art the Christ, (Jewish Messiah) the Son of the living God.” That Jesus was and is the Messiah promised in Genesis, that He was and is the Son of God incarnate, are, in fact, the very foundation of Christianity. And that is exactly what was taught in opposition to Calixtus 1 by Cyril, Hilary, Tertullian, Jerome, (producer of the Latin Vulgate Bible), Basil, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, and the much-honored Greek scholar, Chrysostom.



Unfortunately, what the most famous early believers taught is not always considered by the Vatican to be the “Sacred Tradition” on which doctrines are based. For example, the great Augustine, besides opposing Peter as the Church’s foundation rock, staunchly opposed the doctrine of Mary’s Immaculate Conception which budded in the 5th century. The equally influential Aquinas did the same 800 years later. Hence, as in the Immaculate Conception matter, the Vatican totally disregarded the early theologians’ teachings about Matthew 16:18, even though Christ – as recorded in John’s Gospel – had given Peter the same name of small rock or stone in Aramaic long before the events at Caesarea Philippi. “when Jesus beheld him, (Peter) he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, A stone.” (John 1:42) That Matthew 16:18 can in no way be interpreted as an appointment of Peter to be the first pope is even more evident when other Scriptures from both the Old and New Testament are considered.



Beginning in Exodus, the Old Testament is full of references to Jesus, the coming Messiah, as the foundation rock of saving faith. He it is who is symbolized by the rocks out of which came fresh water in Exodus 17:6 and Numbers 20:10. Moses, in Deuteronomy 32:4, wrote, “He (Jesus) is the ROCK.” Rebuking the Nation of Israel in 32:18, he said, “Of the ROCK that begat thee thou art unmindful.” And in 32:31, he said, “…their (the enemy’s) rock is not as our ROCK.” In her prayer for a man child recorded in 1 Samuel 2:2, Hannah says, “…neither is there any ROCK like our God.” And David, just escaped from Saul, in 2 Samuel 22:2 gives credit for his safety this way: “The LORD is my ROCK, and my fortress, and my deliverer.”



Clear references to our Lord as the ROCK spoken of throughout the Scriptures, also are found in Psalms 18, 28, 31, 40, 42, 61, 62, 71, 78, 89, 92, 94, and 95. See also Isaiah 8:14, 17:10, and 51:1. In Hebrew, the word for rock is cela, and its definition is “crag, cliff, rock,” definitely not the kind of rock or stone one launches at a squirrel on the bird feeder.



In the New Testament, our Lord’s parable of the wise and foolish builders, recorded in Matthew 7 and Luke 6, leaves no doubt that Jesus, not Peter, is the foundation rock on which those who are wise establish their faith. Paul recognized Christ was the nation of Israel’s rock and the foundation of Christianity as well. “….(they, the Jews) did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual ROCK that followed them: and that ROCK was Christ.” (1 Cor. 10:4) Earlier, in 1 Corinthians 3:11, Paul made absolutely certain there would be no mistaking upon whom Christ’s Church was being built. “For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”



The foregoing cited Scriptures not only don’t support Rome’s claim that Peter was ordained a pope, the first in the Vatican’s alleged unbroken chain of popes, they actually contradict the claim, and they contradict it most emphatically. Moreover, one comes up “empty” again when trying to find passages that show Peter and the other Apostles, Paul included, were clearly aware of Peter’s election to leadership by Jesus. Nor is it obvious from God’s Word that Peter spent enough time in Rome to have functioned as that city’s first bishop.



In his own first epistle, Peter acknowledges a title far different from bishop or pope. Says he, “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an ELDER.” (1 Peter 5:1)

Then he says: “Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as BEING LORDS over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.” From these words in particular, and from the general tenor of both his letters, one concludes that Peter had no idea he had been ordained the first pope of a Church that did not come into existence until the 5th century.



In the account of the Church’s first general council reported in Acts 15, it is James, the brother of Jesus, and not Peter, who provides the solution to the problem under discussion. (Cf. Acts 15:13-23.) Even before that council, Peter was not acting like the supreme leader of the flock. Rather than directing the actions of others, he was being directed, as the following attests. “Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, THEY SENT unto them Peter and John.” (Acts 8:14) It was the same John, who, along with his brother James, had sought

from Jesus the promise of sitting one on His right hand, and one on His left in the coming kingdom. This, long after Matthew 16:18 had taken place, and a clear indication that the Apostles had no idea Peter had been ordained their leader.



There is additional biblical evidence refuting the Vatican’s alleged Petrine papacy to be found in Paul’s letter to the Roman Churches. At the end of that letter, he salutes 27 named individuals, none of whom is Peter. Why is that if Peter was bishop of Rome? Also, in Acts 23, Paul not knowing it was the High Priest he was addressing, called him a “whited wall.” (Acts 23:3) When informed that his epithet had been directed at the High Priest, Paul was instantly repentant. Said he, “I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people.” But in his

letter to the Galatian churches Paul is openly critical of Peter, saying, “when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” (Acts 2:11) What Paul said directly to Peter in front of many witnesses was this: “…If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?” (Acts 2:14) If Peter had been ordained bishop of Rome and head of the Church, Paul certainly would have been aware of the fact and would not have been openly critical of him in front of others.



Finally, still consulting the Scriptures, we learn that Paul, not Peter, received the Gospel directly from the lips of Jesus. “But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.” (Gal 1:11,12) And in 2 Peter 3:16, we get the impression that at least some of what Christ had given to Paul was not known to Peter, for he says that in Paul’s letters “are some things hard to be understood.” Inevitably comes this question, if Jesus made Peter head of the Church, why was Paul the one chosen to receive the Gospel directly from our Lord?



The binding and loosing authority the Vatican claims exclusively for its popes was given

to all of the Apostles, not just Peter; (Matthew 18:18) and, in fact to all believers when

Jesus said, “Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven; For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” (Matthew 18: 19,20)



When all of the Scriptures having to do with Peter’s alleged ordination as pope are reviewed it becomes manifestly clear that he was only one of twelve chosen men, who will sit on twelve thrones in the millennium, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. (Matthew 19:28; Luke 22:30). A bishop of Rome he was not. A pope he was not. And when historical facts are studied – as will be done in a separate article – they will positively confirm what has already been seen in the divine Scriptures.