The Rise of the Papacy

Ligonier Ministries ^ | David Wells

[Alex Murphy]

There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.

The Catholic Explanation

The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.

The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.

It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.

The Actual Explanation

In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.

Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.

Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.

The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.

[narses]

More odd views of a poster who claims that Catholics are idolaters, that those who celebrate Easter and Christmas are pagans and that claims that the idea of church on Sunday is a man made tradition and apparently not either Christian or Biblical.

In fact this poster claims ALL organized religions are wrong and that even venerating a simple Cross is pagan. Given that this is the point of view from which he views the world, why should anyone pay attention to his odd, often incomplete and often misread cut-n-pastes?

Some quotes and links as CB now tries to say he didn't say what he said:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2708561/posts?page=29#29

Let the pagans have it. God doesn’t smile down on people who celebrate Easter.

All of the Lent and Easter abomination is pagan and God clearly condemned it in scripture.

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-religion/2686288/replies?c=6

[NKP_Vet]

http://www.theonetruefaith.tv/index.php?nav=03

“Hello there, you’re tuned to The One True Faith - the show we say is the most disturbing hour on television, because we talk about where you are going to spend eternity . . . “

With these words, Michael Voris introduces each episode of the latest weapon in the new evangelization spoken of by Pope John-Paul II and re-iterated by Pope Benedict XVI. Using the medium of television - for too long a form of media dedicated to secular distractions at best and immoral ‘entertainment’ at worst - The One True Faith seeks to address many of the issues surrounding modern Catholicism in a manner which will ensure the message is heard loud and clear by the modern, TV-obsessed generation.

Addressing itself to the teaching of authentic Christianity, The One True Faith takes its name from the Roman Catholic Church - the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith, and the only Church which can claim the fullness of Truth and to be founded personally by Jesus Christ, the second Person of the Blessed Trinity and God-in-the-Flesh.

[CynicalBear]

Catholic Scholars on Christmas

http://www.cogwriter.com/news/church-history/catholic-scholars-on-christmas/

[Salvation]

For the non-Catholics:

You belive in Scripture, correct?

 

Then why don't you believe this?

 

John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."

 

The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.

[verga]

If you expect to be taken seriously, you need to post from legitimate sources. I would rip my 9th graders a new one for citing such a blatantly ridiculous site.

[don-o]

blatantly ridiculous site.

That article might be useful for teaching the fallacy of reasoning from conclusions.

[don-o]

This is one of the main reasons the New Covenant was to be so much superior to the Old Covenant: They shall all be taught of God. No longer are we to be subservient to a mediatorial class.

Yes. But, is it valid to use this concept to deny a hierarchy of authority? Whence can come the unity for which our Lord prayed?

What do you do with the council in Acts 15? If believers were to be "all taught of God", then how could there have been disputes about the Gentiles?

It's one thing to opine in 2014 with the questions (or at least the positions)seemingly resolved, or at least clarified. It is another thing to try to think of the conditions in which the great controversies first arose; and then to look at what was done with them - how and why.

[CynicalBear]

So it,s not the information in the article you refute just that it came from a site that you don’t like that compiled it. How interesting.

[verga]

If the site posts information that is inaccurate like this one does, should I approve it but disapprove of the material?

As I have said a number of times it is virtually impossible to have an intelligent conversation with a prot.

[Springfield Reformer]

SR: This is one of the main reasons the New Covenant was to be so much superior to the Old Covenant: They shall all be taught of God. No longer are we to be subservient to a mediatorial class.

DO: Yes. But, is it valid to use this concept to deny a hierarchy of authority?

"Hierarchy" ("priest-rule" or "priest-primacy") is one of those interesting words where the etymology got left behind as the word through usage expanded in semantic range. But if I take your word in it's most generic meaning, that Christian congregations ought to be ordered under at least some form of leadership, Protestantism obviously recognizes that general principle and has no quarrel with you.  We have our presbyters (or "elders" if you prefer). We even have confessions. Westminster, Heidelberg, etc. But we do see "hierarchy" differently, and the well established Biblical concept that we are all taught of God does play into that difference. 

So while we do not reject authority per se, we do reject those forms of authority which are incompatible with the Scriptural paradigm. Jesus specifically teaches that the authority model for the church will not be like the strict top down structure of worldly systems, but would be a bottom up servant model, in recognition of the fact that in the body of Christ, unlike earthly hierarchies, only God can be the true head, because only God can exert direct authority on every individual member by His Spirit.  A highly structured authoritarian form of human hierarchy is at odds with this basic principle.

Notice for example something often overlooked  in that hotly contested debate over Matthew 16:18. The fight is always about whether Peter has supreme authority, but never about what sort of authority. But the text speaks to that question as well. When something is bound or loosed by an apostle, it "shall have been" already bound or loosed in Heaven, as the Greek tense here is future perfect passive.  So whatever comes from apostolic authority as such is not the imposition of apostolic will or opinion, but by providence we can know it reflects the mind of God Himself, and we expect the leading of God's Spirit in the hearts of believers to be consistent with how He has providentially already led His foundation layers, the Apostles.  And Protestants are already in agreement with this principle with respect to the apostles, who have had a unique role in establishing divine truth. See for example the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.

And we have a record in Scripture of what they established as truth for the ecclesia of Christ. It is a photograph in words of that foundation laid for us. Some have tried to add to that record (Book of Mormon), and some have tried to subtract (Marcion, Higher Criticism, etc.).  Protestants generally view the introduction of later developed doctrines purportedly validated by an undocumented tradition as a means of both adding to and subtracting from the word of God. It is both because in the addition of new things such as transubstantiation or sacerdotal priests or prayers to saints it is necessary to subtract from the already given text, by diminishing the once for all nature of the atonement or questioning the closure of the sacerdotal priesthood by Christ or effectively denying the direct closeness of the parent-child relationship between God and every single one of His children. 

Not to go on too long then, it is simply not true that we as Protestants deny authority.  The entire reformation process was premised on trying to work within an existing albeit corrupt hierarchy, in recognition of that authority. But as it was composed of fallible humans, all such human authority has limits, and must be held accountable when it exceeds those limits. When even Peter got out of line, he was held accountable by Paul. As apostles they were peers. But one had slipped from the truth, and the other had not. So truth, NOT blind allegiance to raw, unquestionable, unchallengeable authority, but conformity to apostolic truth was the the means of holding Peter to account.

And likewise when the reformers challenged the unfaithfulness of the Roman magisterium, said magisterium would have better emulated their supposed head Peter by recognizing the ultimate authority of the apostolic record and righted those wrongs uncovered by their own blunt priests. Instead of repentance, they doubled down on their error, and what else can follow but schism? 1054 all over again.

Peace,

SR

[dsc]

“Yashua was saying that He being the Christ...who rose from the dead that that was the foundation of the church...It had nothing to do with building a building in Rome.”

“Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch.” (Wolfgang Pauli)

Not even wrong refers to any statement, argument or explanation that can be neither correct nor incorrect, because it fails to meet the criteria by which correctness and incorrectness are determined. As a more formal fallacy, it refers to the fine art of generating an ostensibly “correct” conclusion, but from premises known to be wrong or inapplicable.

The phrase implies that not only is someone not making a valid point in a discussion, but they don’t even understand the nature of the discussion itself, or the things that need to be understood in order to participate.

A correct argument or explanation is easy to spot; it may look like this:
2 + 2 = 4

A wrong argument has an incorrect conclusion, but is presented in such a way that we can evaluate it, like so:
2 + 2 = 6

The above two examples can be shown to be right and wrong; they at least make enough sense for us to spot where the error is. Something that is not even wrong is usually so far out of the ballpark or so far from reality that it is, quite simply, flabbergastingly irrelevant. For example:

2 + zebra ÷ glockenspiel = homeopathy works!

This is far more than just an argument leading to a wrong conclusion. The premises aren’t even related to the conclusion or are themselves completely nonsensical. In a way, a “not even wrong” argument is often an extreme non sequitur—such as by the homeopaths who claim that observations (later debunked as a measurement error by the scientists who made them in the first place) of neutrinos breaking the speed of light meant that all science was wrong and therefore homeopathy works. The premises, their arrangements, the conclusion, all are so divorced from facts and logic that even attempting to rationally engage with it gives it too much credit.
(Cribbed from RationalWiki)

[SkyDancer]

-> squirrel!

[CynicalBear]

The facts of history are not in dispute. Catholics have been shown over and over again that the writings of the apostles were considers scripture even during their lifetime. Peter called the writings of Paul scripture. Scripture shows in numerous places that the churches distributed copies of those letters. Catholics trying to take credit is laughable.

[verga]

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

[verga]

Gosh darn it if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul than it is good enough for you prots.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

” if the KJV was good enough for Jesus and Paul than it is good enough for you prots.”

If the Hebrew Scriptures were good enough for Jesus, guess we don’t need a New Testament... or an English translation!

[CynicalBear]

Is that some form of or attempt at obfuscation? That has no. Relationship to the subject of my post. Besides, I don’t restrict myself to the KJV but use others and also check with the Greek text.

[roamer_1]

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

ref: FR:Mormons Say Jesus Was Married? #100

To what end?

[daniel1212]

No, 'solo' means alone.'Sola' means preeminent, above all others... the 'Sole rule of Faith' does not mean there can be no other rules, but that there can be no other rules that trump the 'sole rule'. All Protestant denominations have traditions too - The difference is that their traditions, together or respectively, cannot displace the clear Word.

Roamer_1 please refer to post 100 in a thread titled Mormons say that Jesus was married.

Thanks for the ping, but just what in post 100 contradicts what he said?

[verga]

None at all I guess, Thank you for your lack of consistency.