Replies

"Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian’s teaching because there are two versions of his treatise..."

If you are going to quote William Webster and cut and paste from Christiantruth.com you should cite them as your sources.

No pope, even St. Peter, is impeccable or can declare that 2 + 2 = 5 and make it so. That Paul rebuked Peter is not in question or that it somehow detracts from Peter's primacy or infallibility is purely a product of Protestant desires. St. Peter, like any pope was only infallible when speaking ex cathedra, because when doing so it is the Holy Spirit speaking through them.

It will probably be best stated if I can allow the most recent pope to speak for the first pope.

In recounting Jesus' first meeting with Simon, the brother of Andrew, John the Evangelist records a unique event: Jesus "looked at him and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)'" (Jn 1: 42).

It was not Jesus' practice to change his disciples' names: apart from the nickname "sons of thunder", which in specific circumstances he attributed to the sons of Zebedee (cf. Mk 3: 17) and never used again. He never gave any of his disciples a new name.

Yet, he gave one to Simon, calling him "Cephas". This name was later translated into Greek as Petros and into Latin as Petrus. And it was translated precisely because it was not only a name; it was a "mandate" that Petrus received in that way from the Lord. The new name Petrus was to recur frequently in the Gospels and ended by replacing "Simon", his original name.

This fact acquires special importance if one bears in mind that in the Old Testament, a change of name usually preceded the entrustment of a mission (cf. Gn 17: 5; 32: 28ff., etc.).

Indeed, many signs indicate Christ's desire to give Peter special prominence within the Apostolic College: in Capernaum the Teacher enters Peter's house (cf. Mk 1: 29); when the crowd becomes pressed on the shore of Lake Genesaret, seeing two boats moored there, Jesus chooses Simon's (cf. Lk 5: 3); when, on certain occasions, Jesus takes only three disciples with him, Peter is always recorded as the first of the group: as in the raising of Jairus' daughter (cf. Mk 5: 37; Lk 8: 51), in the Transfiguration (cf. Mk 9: 2; Mt 17: 1; Lk 9: 28) and during the agony in the Garden of Gethsemane (cf. Mk 14: 33; Mt 26: 37). And again: the Temple tax collectors address Peter and the Teacher pays only for himself and Peter (cf. Mt 17: 24-27); it is Peter's feet that he washes first at the Last Supper (cf. Jn 13: 6), and for Peter alone he prays that his faith will not fail so that he will be able to strengthen the other disciples in faith (cf. Lk 22: 30-31).

Moreover, Peter himself was aware of his special position: he often also spoke on behalf of the others, asking for the explanation of a difficult parable (cf. Mt 15: 15), the exact meaning of a precept (cf. Mt 18: 21) or the formal promise of a reward (cf. Mt 19: 27).

It is Peter in particular who resolves certain embarrassing situations by intervening on behalf of all. Thus, when Jesus, saddened by the misunderstanding of the crowd after the Bread of Life discourse, asks: "Will you also go away?", Peter's answer is peremptory in tone: "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life" (cf. Jn 6: 67-69).

Equally decisive is the profession of faith which, again on behalf of the Twelve, he makes near Caesarea Philippi. To Jesus' question: "But who do you say that I am?", Peter answers: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Mt 16: 15-16). Jesus responded by pronouncing the solemn declaration that defines Peter's role in the Church once and for all: "And I tell you: you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church.... I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven" (Mt 16: 18-19).

In themselves, the three metaphors that Jesus uses are crystal clear: Peter will be the rocky foundation on which he will build the edifice of the Church; he will have the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to open or close it to people as he sees fit; lastly, he will be able to bind or to loose, in the sense of establishing or prohibiting whatever he deems necessary for the life of the Church. It is always Christ's Church, not Peter's.

Thus, vivid images portray what the subsequent reflection will describe by the term: "primacy of jurisdiction".

This pre-eminent position that Jesus wanted to bestow upon Peter is also encountered after the Resurrection: Jesus charges the women to announce it especially to Peter, as distinct from the other Apostles (cf. Mk 16: 7); it is to Peter and John that Mary Magdalene runs to tell them that the stone has been rolled away from the entrance to the tomb (cf. Jn 20: 2), and John was to stand back to let Peter enter first when they arrived at the empty tomb (cf. Jn 20: 4-6).

Then, Peter was to be the first witness of an appearance of the Risen One (cf. Lk 24: 34; I Cor 15: 5). His role, decisively emphasized (cf. Jn 20: 3-10), marks the continuity between the pre-eminence he had in the group of the Apostles and the pre-eminence he would continue to have in the community born with the paschal events, as the Book of Acts testifies (cf. 1: 15-26; 2: 14-40; 3: 12-26; 4: 8-12; 5: 1-11, 29; 8: 14-17; 10; etc.).

His behaviour was considered so decisive that it prompted remarks as well as criticism (cf. Acts 11: 1-18; Gal 2: 11-14).

At the so-called Council of Jerusalem Peter played a directive role (cf. Acts 15; Gal 2: 1-10), and precisely because he was a witness of authentic faith, Paul himself recognized that he had a certain quality of "leadership" (cf. I Cor 15: 5; Gal 1: 18; 2: 7ff., etc.).

Moreover, the fact that several of the key texts that refer to Peter can be traced back to the context of the Last Supper, during which Christ conferred upon Peter the ministry of strengthening his brethren (cf. Lk 22: 31ff.), shows that the ministry entrusted to Peter was one of the constitutive elements of the Church, which was born from the commemoration of the Pasch celebrated in the Eucharist.

This contextualization of the Primacy of Peter at the Last Supper, at the moment of the Institution of the Eucharist, the Lord's Pasch, also points to the ultimate meaning of this Primacy: Peter must be the custodian of communion with Christ for all time. He must guide people to communion with Christ; he must ensure that the net does not break, and consequently that universal communion endures. Only together can we be with Christ, who is Lord of all.

Thus, Peter is responsible for guaranteeing communion with Christ with the love of Christ, guiding people to fulfil this love in everyday life. Let us pray that the Primacy of Peter, entrusted to poor human beings, will always be exercised in this original sense as the Lord desired, and that its true meaning will therefore always be recognized by the brethren who are not yet in full communion with us.

Nothing in your post tells me that scripture or church history or the very early church fathers believed that the Bishop of Rome had primacy or that they had jurisdiction over all other churches.

In fact, in some instance you cite ( e.g. Jesus gave Peter a special name — Cephas ), that same argument could apply to others who were given special names as well.

Let’s look at your arguments :

Even if you say this: “Paul rebuked Peter is not in question or that it somehow detracts from Peter’s primacy”

Well, that also does nothing to show that Peter has primacy over every other apostle. What it does show is that Peter’s actions are being judged by the standard of scripture. WHICH WE ALL OUGHT TO DO EVEN WHEN WE EVALUATE CATHOLIC or PROTESTANT DOCTRINE.

As for Peter being aware of his special position, let me direct you to one scriptural passage -— I Peter 5[:1-2], “I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ as well as a partaker in the glory that is to be revealed. Tend the flock of God that is your charge,” etc.

Look at that – Peter calls himself a FELLOW ELDER, that is, equal with pastor or preacher; he does not want to rule over them, but to be equal with them, although he knows that he is an apostle.

No mention of his primacy, or his jurisdiction over all the churches.

All the other things you mentioned about Peter from scripture DOES shoe the love that Jesus showed for his disciple Peter. No true Christian questions or disputes that.

But again the question — HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO PETER BEING POPE AND HOW DOES THAT TRANSLATE TO THE ROMAN CHURCH HAVING JURSIDICTION AND AUTHORITY OVER ALL OTHER CHURCHES?

All these incidents you mention — that he was one of the first witnesses to the resurrection ( ignoring the women of course ), that he played a part in the council of Jerusalem ( conveniently ignoring the final ruling of the apostle James ), that Jesus conferred on Peter the ministry of strengthening the brethren ( as if this task was not conferred on all other believers and disciples ) do nothing to show that he was the Pope.

All they show is that Christ’s followers should follow his example and similarly minister to others, with Peter and the apostles being examples.

Where do they show that he was the pope, much less infallible?

Did Peter Act Like a Pope?

Since there is no evidence that the office of Pope even existed in the early church, obviously neither Peter nor anyone else could hold the office. But let us confirm our conclusions by looking at the Bible teaching specifically about Peter to see if he acted like a Pope.

A. Peter Had No Authority above Other Apostles.

All apostles received direct guidance of the Holy Spirit - Acts 2:1-4; Ephesians 3:3-5; John 16:13; 14:26.

Why would apostles need guidance from a Pope if they were guided directly by the Spirit? Paul expressly stated that his teaching was not based on anything learned from man but on direct revelation from Jesus - Galatians 1:11,12,16,17; 2:6-9,11-14.

All apostles received the power to “bind and loose.”

Some claim that Jesus, in Matthew 16:19, gave exclusively to Peter the power to bind and loose, but Matthew 18:18 shows that others also had the same power.

John 20:22,23 - All apostles had power to forgive or retain sins, but only as guided by the Holy Spirit. No apostle could originate laws but could only reveal the laws God made. They did this by revealing and preaching the gospel.

If men obey, their sins are forgiven; if not, their sins are retained - Rom. 1:16; Mark 16:15,16; Acts 2:36-41; etc.

The gospel was the “keys” or authority by which apostles opened the door for men to enter the church. Peter was the first to preach to Jews (Acts 2) and to Gentiles (Acts 10), but all apostles had authority to preach the gospel. No passage anywhere says the other apostles submitted to Peter’s authority.

Paul affirmed he was equal with other apostles in every way - 2 Corinthians 11:5; 12:11.

All apostles were ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20). If Peter had authority over all apostles, Paul would have been behind him, but Paul denies this.

There is no proof Peter had authority over other apostles, but much proof shows the others had all that Peter had.

B. Peter Did Not Fit the Pattern of Modern Popes.

Peter was a married man, but modern Popes are not permitted to marry.

Matthew 8:14 - Jesus healed the mother of Peter’s wife.
1 Corinthians 9:5 - Peter (Cephas) continued to have a wife (woman) after the church began. The footnote in the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Bible adds, “There is no question of a right to marry. The Apostles had that right....” This expressly included Peter.

1 Peter 5:1-3 - Peter was an elder or bishop, and bishops were married (Titus 1:5,6; 1 Timothy 3:2).

Hebrews 13:4; 1 Timothy 4:1-3 - Marriage is honorable for all people. That includes apostles and all church officials. To teach that certain people may not marry is a doctrine of apostasy.

Peter was never addressed by titles of exaltation such as are used to honor modern Popes.

Peter is never called “Pope,” “Chief Pastor,” “Prince of the Apostles,” “Head of the Church,” “Ruler of the Church,” “Supreme Pontiff,” etc. He called himself simply an apostle and servant (1 Peter 1:1; 2 Peter 1:1) and fellow-presbyter (1 Peter 5:1).

Matthew 23:9 expressly forbids calling any man “father” as a title of religious honor. Yet the word “Pope” originally meant “Father” (Catholic Dictionary, p. 667).

C. There Is No Valid Scriptural Proof that Peter Ever Acted as Pope.

Luke 22:31,32 - Jesus prayed for Peter so he could strengthen his brethren.

Some actually claim this proves Peter was Pope.

But other people besides Peter strengthened or confirmed brethren (Acts 18:23; 14:21f; 15:32,41). Were these people all Popes too?

Jesus prayed for other apostles and disciples besides Peter (John 17:9,11,15,20). Did that make them all Popes?

The next verses in Luke 22 (v33,34) show that Jesus did not pray for Peter to exalt him as Pope, but for just the opposite reason. Jesus knew Peter was about to deny Him!

Peter took the lead in many events in Acts.

This includes the choosing of Matthias (Acts 1:15-26), preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2), healing a lame man (Acts 3,4), the death of Ananias & Sapphira (Acts 5), preaching to the first Gentiles (Acts 10), etc.

Some claim this proves he was Pope .

But Paul was at least as dominant in Acts 13-28 as Peter was in Acts 1-12. Was Paul Pope too?

So, don’t get me wrong, Peter was truly an important man, just as Paul was.

In all groups some people are more outspoken than others, and this was surely Peter’s case. But none of these passages say or imply he was Pope or head of the church. The fact a man is able to speak well does not prove he has authority over others.

It is claimed Peter presided over the Jerusalem meeting about circumcision (Acts 15).

It is claimed that he spoke first and he settled the issue.

However, Paul and Barnabas were sent to the meeting to speak to the apostles and presbyters (v2) - no distinctions were made among the apostles. If Peter was the head, why doesn’t it say they went to confer with “the Pope, the apostles, and the presbyters”?

Peter did not speak first. There had been long debate before he spoke (v7). And his speech did not settle the issue.

People kept silent after he spoke only so they could listen to other speakers (v12)! The final course of action was suggested by James (v13,19ff). And the whole procedure was directed by the Holy Spirit (v28), which led all apostles as we have already shown.

It is claimed that, in lists of apostles, Peter is named first because he was Pope.

But in the following lists, he is not named first: Gal. 2:9; 1 Cor. 1:12; 3:22; John 1:44.

Does this prove the people listed before Peter had authority over him? Being first in a list does not prove one is a Pope.

The lists where Peter is named first clearly state the office to which he was appointed - like other men, he was chosen to be an apostle (Luke 6:13-16; Matt. 10:2ff). If Peter was chosen to the office of Pope, why is this never stated anywhere?

It is claimed (by you above) that Jesus gave Peter a special name because he would be Pope.

But Jesus gave a special name to James and John (Mark 3:16,17). And God gave special names to Abraham and Sarah (Gen. 17:5,15), Jacob (Gen. 32:28f), and others. Were all these people Popes too?

Be honest now. Isn’t this weak and flimsy evidence on which to base such a major doctrine? The Bible clearly identifies the work and position in the church of Jesus, apostles, bishops, etc. If the office of Pope is really the foundation of the church, why don’t we have clear Scriptural evidence for it?