PART III: Peter and the CHAIR: All you need to know on the Papacy
In the final part of this series, let’s look at the early church and the evidence that Peter was in office, that he had a special place of authority and that there is an office of papacy. The earliest record of the early church would actually be the book of Acts, the Acts of the Apostles. Here we will discuss how that portrays Peter in this book and how it lends evidence for the fact that Peter had special authority, the Vicar of Christ.
The term Vicar means representative, a person who acts in place of another; a substitute. A person who is authorized to perform the functions of another. Peter is God’s Vicar on earth.
We see this in John 21. Jesus gives his pastoral authority to Peter with three commands:
“Feed my lambs, take care of my sheep, feed my sheep.”
In this verse, Jesus delegates his authority three times and in three different ways while using imagery found throughout the Old Testament. In so doing he evidently reveals his delegation of authority to Peter. History shows us that from the earliest days Christians considered Peter to be the very rock, steward, and shepherd that Jesus declared him to be. The three strands of rock, steward, and shepherd are interlinked in and throughout the whole of Scripture, which comes into focus in the life of Jesus who is the true Rock, the King of the Kingdom, the Good Shepherd, and the one who hands his authority on earth to Peter until he comes again.
If we look deep in the Book of Acts, we see that Peter is the one that stands up, he is the one that addresses the crowds and always takes the lead. He is the head apostle here, literally. As a matter of fact, in the whole book of Acts, you do not find the words of any other apostle except Paul who comes along later on. The words of the apostle that you see in the book of Acts, come only from the mouth of Peter. Not John or Thomas and not even James. Only Peter. He is the head apostle. He is the head of the church. He is the one who has been given the primacy over the church in Old Testament terminology or the steward of the house. He's been put in charge. He is the one running the church. He’s the one that gets the church started through the Holy Spirit, along with the other apostles and he begins to teach. He is the one that tells them that they need to be baptized and so on. He stands and becomes the leader, representative and head of the church.
Non-Catholics protest, “There is no evidence that Peter’s ministry will be successive.”
To start, the image of the rock is, by its very nature, timeless and everlasting. That is why the image of the rock was chosen during this context. That’s just how rocks are. They’re there to remain. In Matthew 16 Jesus himself says that the steward’s ministry will have a continuous dimension. He holds the keys to the dominion of God and also the gates of hell will never prevail against it. Finally, the image of the shepherd, as we've seen, is a continuous one because God himself is the ultimate Good Shepherd. If the rock, the steward, and also the shepherd are eternal ministries, then for it to last that long, the ministry must be successive. How could this eternal ministry have died out with Peter himself and still are eternal?
There's some argument with the idea that for Peter to be the first Pope, he would have to be in Rome in order to be the first Bishop of Rome. Many Protestants will say that there’s actually no evidence in the Bible at all that Peter was ever even in Rome. Or, that Paul never mentions Peter in his letter to the Romans. Therefore, how important is the idea that Peter has a special place and/or is the first Bishop of Rome? How shall we respond to this argument?
How about through scripture itself? Let’s understand that whether you agree with or like it or not, scripture is not a complete handbook of everything Christian and Catholic. So we will look not only to what scripture says, but how the church itself organically began to grow. We will be going beyond the last words of the Bible because that is not where the Word of God ends.
The question is, was there really a papacy and was Peter recognized as the first pope? The quick answer to that is YES.
In first Corinthians and in Galatians, Paul refers to him as Cephas. Protestants have this idea that Peter and Paul didn’t like each other and that Paul had a low attitude about Peter. If that was the case and he was trying to diminish the authority of Peter, he would have always referred to him as Simon.
In the book of Acts in chapter 15 the apostles all came back together in Jerusalem in the first ecumenical council where the apostles came together to make a very important decision, whether or not the Gentiles have to be circumcised to become Christians. Now we are not here to discuss that topic but how was that determination made.
Peter stood. He was among all of the apostles and elders in the church in Jerusalem and he gave them a theological basis as to why the Gentiles were not required to be circumcised in order to become Christians. This is obviously something that is against the current law which states you must be circumcised. This was very contradictory to the Jews traditions. At that moment, James stands up in a pastoral sense and not of ultimate authority, and summarizes what this council had spoken and quotes two authorities. He first quotes Joel from the Old Testament about how the Holy Spirit is going to be poured out upon you and your children. The second authority that he quotes as equal in value is the words of Peter because Peter is the head of the church. Now keep in mind this goes against the idea that Protestants say about Peter not having any special authority here. James was not running the show. He quoted Peter first and then spoke in judgement as a Pastor.
See, at one point Peter gave up his Bishop role in Jerusalem so that he could become the Bishop of the world. Peter didn’t stay the Bishop of Jerusalem because that was too limited. When the church started to grow, Peter had to step out and become the bishop beyond Jerusalem. Eventually not only as a Bishop of Antioch, when the church spread up there to the Gentiles, but then when the church went to Rome, Peter became the Bishop of Rome. That’s where the church has its headquarters from that day up until today.
Protestants state that somehow because it never mentions that Peter was in Rome, that means he wasn’t. That’s like saying that because the Bible never mentions Thomas going up into the Armenian area and eventually over to India, that means he didn’t go. That would mean that none of the apostles went anywhere just because the Bible doesn’t mention any of the others going anywhere. Do you see why the Bible alone cannot educate us on all things Christian? So from that line of thinking, neither the apostles nor the church ever went anywhere and never got evangelized. Which would be a faulty assumption to think if the Bible doesn’t tell us that it didn’t happen. We know from several sources that Peter did go to other places, including Rome and there is much archaeological evidence that Peter was at Rome.
1 Peter 5:13, which is the letter we have from Peter, he says,
“She who is in Babylon, chosen together with you, sends you her greetings, and so does my son Mark.”
Mark is the traveling companion of Peter and author of the gospel of Mark. So what does it mean when Peter’s talking about “she who is in Babylon”? This passage is actually quite significant because Babylon was the country that terrorized and oppressed the nation of Israel. Rome is the country oppressing and persecuting the church in this time, and it received the nickname of Babylon. That was the code word. People were being killed for being Christians. Even if anyone knew that Peter was in Rome, they wouldn’t speak of it because he was obviously hiding. It was dangerous. They don’t want Peter to be killed. Therefore, Babylon became a code word for Rome because it was the persecutor of the church at the time, but there was no big church over in Babylon yet and Peter wasn’t there.
So “she” mentioned here is the church. The church that’s here in “Babylon” (Rome), together with you, sends greetings as does my son Mark. We know that Mark was considered the son of Peter because he baptized him. He’s Peter's spiritual son. And when he says that she is in Babylon, he means the church that is in Rome. That Church sends greetings, implying of course that Peter was in Rome.
There is a mentality among Protestants that the apostles were kind of lone rangers and they all went out and established independent churches. This was kind of my mentality when I was an Evangelical Protestant. However, that’s not at all the way that the church functioned if you look back at the early church. Even Paul did not view that he could go out and do something on his own, he actually says that he came back to Cephas, the rock, to receive the right hand of fellowship to ensure that he was preaching the gospel not in vain. He basically went to get his approval.
The early church right from the very beginning, was episcopate. In scriptural terms, episcopate is someone who’s had hands laid on them and they have an official authority, an authority that’s binding. As the church grew, that episcopate grew. That was the Pope. Peter had the authority over the church, all of it, and then each diocese had a Bishop who had authority over that. Then they had others as pastors or priests of local churches. The early church understood this. The early church fathers, first, second and into the third century, were unanimous that Peter was in Rome, that he built the church in Rome, that he died as a martyr in Rome and was buried in Rome. His body is still there today. These are facts and it is so established in history.
Ignatius of Antioch, who was a disciple of John the Apostle, died a martyr in Rome as well as Clement of Rome who is buried in the church of San Clemente, 300 yards from the Coliseum. These men were the very first witnesses. Their writings acknowledge the primacy of Peter in Rome, the authority, the Bishop of Rome. You can’t get a more clear statement about the fact that there are bishops, one bishop in each diocese, and the Bishop has his priests and his deacons, as you do in Ignatius of Antioch. Ignatius was killed around 107 AD. He was eaten by lions in Rome. And in one of his seven letters, he is so clear about the whole structure of the Catholic church, and it is exactly what we have in place today. He talks about bishops, priests, and deacons. He talks about Rome being a special church.
Peter writes to other churches including those in Smyrna, Laodicea, Ephesus and to his friend, Polycarp. But when he writes to Rome, there's a particular reverential deference. If you read the greeting he writes in his letter to the Romans in comparison to his other letters, it is very exuberant in praise. He speaks of the Romans worthy of God, of honor, of the highest happiness, praise, obtaining every desire, the church which presides over love.
Another Church Father, John Chrysostom, says that it absolutely was the apostle Peter who laid his hands on Ignatius. Ignatius didn't have a Bible or a catechism. How did Ignatius understand anything about the church? How did he know how to baptize, what he had to do on Sundays, how you get saved? What is the structure of the church? How does he know anything? Because he learned it directly from the apostles. Their words were still ringing in his ears. This was how Ignatius knew. His writing to Rome as a church which presided over love, presided in love over the church and he had that position. This proceeds all the way back to the first century. All the Popes are listed in order of their Papacy, all the way up to today’s Pope. The first was Peter, then Linus, third was Cletus/Anacletus, the fourth Pope is Clement of Rome, etc. We actually have one of Clement's letters from 96 A.D. which is still the first century. You can look up the list of succession of the bishops of Rome, also known as the Popes.
There's a lot of evidence for the primacy of Peter, as the Bishop of Rome, that he is not one among equals. He has some type of authority over the churches and the pastors and their churches whom Christ entrusted that authority to. This authority goes to each of Peter’s successors up to the present successor today, which at the time this blog is written is Pope Francis.
I believe that there is one thing that Protestants kind of flare up about. It is the idea that the Pope isn’t just a pastor, but he has the special appeal or charm. He’s infallible. The idea of papal infallibility, though of course that appeal applies to the church as a whole. I am going to help you understand what the papal infallibility means and what it does not mean, which is why most people misunderstand it.
It is implied that the Pope being infallible means that he is perfect, that he’s impeccable and without sin, that he has this ability to rise above the rest of us and all of humanity. There's the attitude that the Pope can predict the game scores, earthquakes, tornadoes and hurricanes and such because he's fallible. If he is infallible then why can’t he do all of this? The fact of the matter is that this is not what it means. This is far from what the Pope’s infallibility is.
The gift of infallibility is actually a negative promise and not a positive one. When the Pope has infallibility, it does not mean that he’s timely, eloquent, or that everything he says is correct. What it means is that under certain circumstances, and/or after certain criteria he, as the pastor of the universal church, as the one that sits in the chair of St. Peter, intends to define doctrine that is binding upon all the people of God. The Holy Spirit of God protects him from teaching error under those circumstances. This is under his own freewill, not being forced to do it, and It may not be timely, beautifully written, eloquent, or even well said. His infallibility simply means that we can trust what the Pope says to be free of error or heresy. To be historically and theologically correct.
Is there any biblical or historical evidence for this idea of the Pope having a special charism/infallibility?
One piece of evidence is in the Bible. We spoke about this before. In Matthew 16 the fact that Jesus gave them the authority to bind and to loose. That means that you have the right to make laws and to judge. That what Peter does with that authority, is going to be ratified in heaven. Isn’t this an amazing and powerful authority? What does it mean from the point Jesus tells Peter this and going forward? It simply means that God is going to superintend what Peter says because he’s now got his name attached to it. He has now given his reputation to this. Peter can no longer just blurt things out anymore. He needs to be prudent and correct in what he says. It has to be in line with Jesus’ teachings. How? The Holy Spirit! The Holy Spirit is going to fortify what Peter says and does under certain circumstances.
In 1 Timothy 3:15, Paul is writing to Timothy and says to him,
“if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.”
In other words, it is the church, not the Bible, that is recognized by Paul and the early church as the pillar and foundation of the truth. This Church has a pastor to lead it (since the church doesn’t come without the authority structure within it). 1 Timothy 3:15 is clear that it is the church of the living God. Therefore, that means that the church has authority. It has a certain infallibility so that we can trust it.
The question that comes to mind is, how can a fallible, weak, sinful person give us an infallible teaching? Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They wrote the gospels we all love and follow. Paul wrote letters which have taught us how to be a Christian. Yet, these are all fallible men who not only provided infallible writings, these writings became the inspired word of God! We often forget that the Bible, although infallible, has a divine and human source behind it. Anything that is set in place and inspired by God through the Holy Spirit, will forever be infallible. So, it is only through God, that the Church and its Pastor become infallible and inspired. Because the Church, instituted by Jesus, is the foundation and pillar of truth.
One final objection that Protestants will make to the idea of Papal infallibility, is usually by citing specific historical episodes. The earliest one probably cited is about the actions of Peter which Paul describes in his letter to the Galatians. It says that Paul opposed Peter and called him out. This particular comment of Paul in fact, PROVE the Catholic position of infallibility.
What is happening here is that Peter was causing all of the people to follow him into error. Is Peter teaching heresy and does Paul accuse Peter of teaching wrongly? NO! Paul is actually accusing Peter of not living up to his infallible teaching. Peter had taught the infallible teaching that Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. He needed to remind him that no one else needs to be circumcised and that the Jews and the Gentiles are one in Christ. It wasn’t that Peter’s teaching was wrong. Peter's teaching was infallible, but he was being hypocritical in the act of his own teaching. Because, when some Jews came down to Antioch, they were teaching that the Gentiles were not the same. That the uncircumcised could not be Christians until they were circumcised first. Some of the Jewish believers in Jesus were pulling away from the Gentiles. Because of this, Paul called him on being a hypocrite, and very well deserved. Barnabas, who was Paul’s right hand man, leaves Paul and follows the actions of Peter, which shows right there the importance and authority that Peter had in the early church. When Peter did something, everyone would follow him even in contradiction to Paul.
The early Christians, closer to the apostle’s time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter.
While some Fundamentalists say the pope is the “spawn of Satan,” the papacy is far from that. It is actually God’s gift to the Church. It makes sure that the Church will be united in one faith, one baptism, and worship of one God who entrusted his Church to the successors of the apostles under the leadership and guidance of Peter’s successor, whom today we call the pope.
Comments
Post a Comment