Finally, in Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means rock, and said, “You are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”
This passage is foreshadowed by Isaiah 22:22, which tells of how Israel’s wicked chief steward Shebna was replaced with the righteous Eli’akim. Isaiah 22:22 said Eli’akim would have “the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.” Just as King Hezekiah gave Eli’akim authority to oversee the kingdom of Israel, Christ gave Peter authority to oversee his Church (i.e., the “keys to the kingdom”), which included the authority to “bind and loose”—in other words, to determine official doctrine and practice.
In response to these verses, some Protestants claim Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church was built, because 1 Corinthians 10:4 says “the rock was Christ.” Others say the Greek text of Matthew 16:18 shows that while Simon was called petros, the rock the Church will be built on was called petras, thus showing that the Church is not built on Peter. But in 1 Corinthians, Paul is talking about Christ shepherding ancient Israel, not the Church, and in Matthew 16, petros and petras both refer to Peter.
According to John 1:42, Jesus gave Simon the Aramaic name Kepha, which means simply “rock.” But unlike in Aramaic, in Greek the word rock is a feminine noun, so Matthew used the masculine version of rock, or petros, since calling Peter petras would have been on par with calling him Patricia! As Lutheran theologian Oscar Cullman puts it, “petra=Kepha=petros” (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, 98). Even the Protestant Reformer John Calvin said, “There is no difference of meaning, I acknowledge, between the two Greek words petros and petra” (Commentary on Matthew Mark, and Luke, vol. 2).
Finally, if Peter is not the rock upon whom the Church is built, then why did Jesus bother to change Simon’s name in the first place? As Protestant scholar Craig Keener writes in his commentary on Matthew, “[Jesus] plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his Church” (426).
But didn’t Peter refer to himself as a “fellow elder” and not as “pope” in 1 Peter 5:1? Yes, but in this passage Peter is demonstrating the humility that he is encouraging other priests to practice. He wrote, “Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another” (5:5), so exalting his status would have contradicted his message.
Besides, St. Paul often referred to himself as a mere deacon (see 1 Corinthians 3:5, 2 Corinthians 11:23) and even said he was “the very least of all the saints” (Eph. 3:8), but that did not take away from his authority as an apostle. Likewise, Peter’s description of himself as an elder does not take away from his authority as being “first” among the apostles (Matt 10:2).
Myth #4: The Bible never says Peter was infallible. In fact, Scripture proves he was very fallible.
The doctrine of papal infallibility teaches that the pope has a special grace from Christ that protects him from leading the Church into error. That grace won’t keep him from sinning (even gravely), nor will it give him the right answer to every issue facing the Church. Instead, it will protect the pope from officially leading the Church into heresy. As a private theologian, the pope might speculate, even incorrectly, about the Faith, but he will never issue a false teaching related to faith or morality that claims to be binding and infallible (or an erroneous ex cathedra teaching).
But why believe the pope is infallible? Matthew 16:18 says the “powers of death” (in other translations “the gates of hell”) will never prevail against the Church, so it makes sense that the pastor of Christ’s Church will never steer it into hell by teaching heresy. Luke 22:31-32 records Jesus telling Peter, “Satan has demanded to sift you all like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.” The original Greek in the passage shows that Satan demanded to sift “you all,” or all the apostles, but Jesus prayed only for Peter and his faith not to fail.
Now, it’s true that Christ once called Peter “Satan” for trying to stop the crucifixion (Matt. 16:23), and he knew Peter would later deny him at his trial. But God doesn’t call the perfect—he perfects the called. Christ prayed that once Peter had “turned again” from his sins, he would lead and strengthen the apostles. After his Resurrection, Jesus even appeared to Peter first (1 Cor. 15:5).
Most Protestants would have to admit that Peter was infallible when he wrote 1 and 2 Peter, or at least that those epistles have no errors. Catholics simply take this reasoning to the logical conclusion that Peter never led the Church into error, nor did any of his successors. Some argue that Peter was fallible because St. Paul opposed him in Antioch and said Peter was wrong or “stood condemned” (Gal. 2:11-14). But in this situation Peter, at most, made an error in behavior, not teaching.
Peter feared antagonism from Christians who thought circumcision was necessary for salvation. So, while he was in their presence, Peter declined to eat with the uncircumcised. Paul criticized Peter for doing this, but Paul himself accommodated this same group when he had his disciple Timothy circumcised. Paul did this to make it easier to preach to the Jews (Acts 16:1-3), but Paul called circumcision a grave sin in Galatians 5:2. Therefore, if prudentially yielding to critics doesn’t invalidate St. Paul’s authority, then neither does it invalidate St. Peter’s.
No one denies that some popes engaged in serous sins, but infallibility means only that the pope won’t teach error, not that he will be sinless. Indeed, some Church Fathers, such as St. Cyprian of Carthage, criticized the pope’s decisions; but even Cyprian believed the pope could not lead the Church astray. He writes in A.D. 256 of heretics who dare approach “the throne of Peter . . . to whom faithlessness could have no access” (Epistle 54.14), or, as other translations put it, “from whom no error can flow.”
This post excerpted from Trent Horn’s article “Defending the Papacy.” The full article can be found in this month’s issue of Catholic Answers Magazine, available for digital download here.
more popecorn, please
So if the Pope espouses socialism and global warming will Catholics see this as doctrine or personal opinion? Will they forego air conditioning? Will Obama use this Pope’s stance to push redistribution of wealth? This is not an insult to anyone but a concern as there are a huge number of Catholics in the U.S.
Where does Jesus mention the Catholic Church?
Your interpretation of scripture is all wrong. Plus don't forget that just 5 verses later Jesus calls Peter "Satan."
Furthermore, Galatians 2:7-8 says, "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Paul was the apostle to the Gentile nations, whereas Peter was the apostle to the Jewish nation. Also given that Paul never mentioned Peter in his salutation at the end of Romans one has to conclude that Peter never went to Rome.
Finally, in Matthew 16:18-19, Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter, which means rock, and said, “You are Peter [rock], and on this rock I will build my church, ....
Ephesians 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone
The apostles and prophets are foundation with Jesus being the chief corner stone.
Don’t take me wrong. I love Catholics.