[mustbenothing]

Against the rules of debate etiquette, it has been asserted that I must respond to each and every cut 'n' paste offered by a Roman Catholic. In order to combat this claim, I have run a google search for some Protestant websites contra Roman Catholicism. I will cut 'n' paste everything I find there, and require that everything is addressed point-by-point. I hope that this will start to demonstrate the fact that cut 'n' paste is a disrespectful, absurd strategy that will never get us anywhere. I hope that, on the basis of this thread, cut 'n' pastes will cease and desist (especially cases in which copyright laws are being broken).


http://www.ntrmin.org/

51 New Testament Proofs for Pauline Primacy and the Papacy



At his web site, Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong has a list of "50 NEW TESTAMENT PROOFS FOR PETRINE PRIMACY AND THE PAPACY" (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ112.HTM). He says that the evidence "is quite strong, and is inescapably compelling by virtue of its cumulative weight". In a recent article written in response to me (http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ502.HTM), Dave said:



As I said, Jason is highly encouraged to actually offer reasonable replies to all 50 evidences, as opposed to merely belittling and dismissing them out of hand....

Well, if Jason works up a list of 50 Biblical Proofs Suggesting that John, Not Peter, Was Pope, I will reply to it, point-by-point, even though Jason won't grant me that courtesy....

Jason can mock the paper all he wants. The fair-minded reader who seeks truth may wish to take a look at it and see whether the evidences presented, taken together, are as extremely weak and insignificant as he makes them out to be



I've already responded to some of Dave's list of 50 proofs, though I don't intend to respond to every one of them. Does Dave really think it's reasonable to expect me to explain to him why passages like John 20:6 and Acts 12:5 don't logically lead to a papacy? Dave's list includes things like Peter being the first person to enter Jesus' tomb (John 20:6) and Peter interpreting prophecy (2 Peter 1:16-21). As though other apostles didn't interpret prophecy also? Anybody who sees papal implications in such things will, if he's consistent, see papal implications in passages about Paul, John, and other Biblical figures as well. But Dave isn't consistent on this issue. When he responded to my examples of John being singled out in some way in scripture, he dismissed all of them as not necessarily referring to John being a Pope. I agree with Dave that John wasn't a Pope. But if he's not going to see papal implications in John being called "the beloved disciple" (John 21:20) and "the elder" (2 John 1), for example, then why see papal implications in Peter's shadow working miracles (Acts 5:15) and the church praying for Peter (Acts 12:5)? Dave sees papal implications in such irrelevant details of Peter's life, yet he sees no papal implications in the more relevant details of the other apostles' lives. When Acts 12:5 refers to "the church" praying for Peter, Dave sees papal implications in that passage. But when Acts 20:28 refers to the Ephesian bishops being entrusted with "the church of God", Dave sees no papal implications in that passage. Even though Peter explains in his first epistle that he's writing to a limited group of people, not all Christians worldwide (1 Peter 1:1), and Peter even uses the phrase "among you" (1 Peter 5:1), Dave apparently interprets 1 Peter 5:1 as an example of Peter commanding all bishops across the world. I don't deny that Peter and every other apostle had authority over all bishops. But how can Dave ignore the context of who 1 Peter was written to, then read papal implications into the text? Nothing in 1 Peter 5:1 suggests a papacy. If Dave is going to see a papacy in that passage, he ought to see papal implications even more so in a passage like 2 Corinthians 11:28. But he doesn't. Dave's list of Biblical proofs for the papacy is arbitrary, speculative, inconsistent, and unconvincing.

He isn't even consistent in his claims about how strong the Biblical evidence for the papacy is. At times he uses phrases like "explicit" and "inescapably compelling". At other times, Dave refers to the Biblical papacy as an acorn that would only later grow into an oak tree. He approvingly quotes Cardinal Newman referring to the early papacy as something that was operating below the surface, something that might at times only show "little" evidence of its existence. Dave himself describes the early Christians' understanding of the papacy as "a growing understanding". So, which is it? Dave will refer to the Biblical evidence for the papacy as explicit, inescapably compelling, etc. at one point, but then he'll say elsewhere that the evidence for it is like an acorn, below the surface, something that was only gradually understood, etc. It seems that Dave, like other Catholic apologists, is trying to have it both ways on this issue.

Dave cites Matthew 16:18-19 as the best Biblical evidence for the papacy. I refute the Catholic interpretation of that passage in a recent reply to Dave elsewhere at this web site (http://members.aol.com/jasonte3/devdef6. htm). I've given Dave some examples of how his approach toward passages about Peter could lead to the conclusion that other people were Popes, if we were to apply Dave's reasoning to other passages. I now want to present a list of 51 Biblical proofs for Pauline primacy. This list uses fallacious reasoning similar to Dave's.

Catholics can't object to this list by pointing to post-Biblical evidence for a Petrine papacy, since the issue under discussion is whether the Biblical evidence supports a papacy. Nobody denies that a Petrine papacy eventually developed in Rome. The question is whether that papacy was just a later development or is a teaching of the scriptures as well. I've documented in my reply to Dave linked above that not only does the Bible not mention a papacy, but neither do any of the post-Biblical sources in the earliest centuries of Christianity. If Ephesus had been the capital of the Roman empire, and the Ephesian church had gradually become more and more prominent, the bishops of Ephesus could have claimed that the Bible teaches a Pauline or Johannine primacy. Maybe they could have produced a list like this (Dave has responded to this list here, and I reply to that response here):



1. Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

2. Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

3. The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

4. Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).

5. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).

6. Paul is the only apostle to call himself "father" (1 Corinthians 4:15).

7. Paul is the steward of God's grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.

8. Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.

9. The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.

10. Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

11. Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.

12. Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

13. Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

14. Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).

15. Paul seems to have received more opposition from false teachers than any other apostle did, since he was the Pope (Romans 3:8, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Galatians 1:7, 6:17, Philippians 1:17).

16. Paul seems to have traveled further and more often than any other apostle, as we see in Acts and his epistles, which is what we might expect a Pope to do.

17. Only Paul's teachings were so advanced, so deep, that another apostle acknowledged that some of his teachings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter's understanding of doctrine doesn't seem to be as advanced as Pope Paul's. Paul has the primacy of doctrinal knowledge.

18. Paul was the first apostle whose writings were recognized as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

19. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).

20. Only Paul refers to himself having a rod, a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 4:21).

21. Paul initiates the council of Acts 15 by starting the debate with the false teachers (Acts 15:2) and delivering a report to the other church leaders (Acts 15:4).

22. Peter's comments in Acts 15:7-11 are accepted only because Pope Paul goes on to confirm them (Acts 15:12).

23. When the Corinthians were dividing over which apostle to associate themselves with, Paul's name was the first one mentioned (1 Corinthians 1:12).

24. Paul was the only apostle with the authority to deliver people over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).

25. Paul had the best training and education of all the apostles (Philippians 3:4-6).

26. Paul is the only apostle to call the gospel "my gospel" (Romans 2:16).

27. Paul writes more about the identity of the church than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12, Colossians 1, Ephesians 4-5), which we might expect a Pope to do. Paul is the standard of orthodoxy and the Vicar of Christ on earth, so he has the primary responsibility for defining what the church is and who belongs to it.

28. Paul writes more about church government than any other apostle does, such as in his pastoral epistles.

29. Paul discusses church unity more than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4), suggesting that he was the one responsible for maintaining church unity because of his papal authority.

30. Paul writes more about the gospel than any other apostle does (Romans, Galatians). As the leader of Christianity, Paul was most responsible for explaining the gospel and other Christian doctrine.

31. After Jesus, Paul speaks more about the kingdom of God than anybody else does (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Galatians 5:21, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). After leaving earth, Jesus passed on the responsibility of teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul, the king of the church on earth.

32. Paul speaks of revealing mysteries more than any other apostle does (Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 5:32, 6:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:7), since he was the chief teacher of the church.

33. Paul was the only apostle other people tried to impersonate (2 Thessalonians 2:2), since he had more authority than anybody else.

34. Paul's clothing works miracles (Acts 19:11-12).

35. Paul is delivered from death more than any other apostle (Acts 14:19, 28:3-6, 2 Corinthians 11:23).

36. The Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13 associate themselves with Paul rather than with any other apostle.

37. The demons in Acts 19:15 recognize Paul's primacy.

38. The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognize Paul's primacy, saying that he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere.

39. Paul had authority over the finances of the church (Acts 24:26, 2 Corinthians 9:5, Philippians 4:15-18).

40. Paul acts as the chief shepherd of the church, taking responsibility for each individual (2 Corinthians 11:29). For example, Paul was Peter's shepherd (Galatians 2:11).

41. Paul interprets prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12).

42. Only Paul is referred to as being set apart for his ministry from his mother's womb (Galatians 1:15).

43. Jesus Christ is revealed in Paul (Galatians 1:16), meaning that Paul and his successors are the infallible standard of Christian orthodoxy.

44. Paul is the only apostle who works by himself, only later coordinating his efforts with the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-18).

45. Only Paul is referred to as bearing the brandmarks of Christ (Galatians 6:17).

46. Every Christian was interested in Paul and what was happening in his life, looking to him as their example and their encouragement (Philippians 1:12-14).

47. Christians served Paul (Philippians 2:30).

48. Paul worked more than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10), since he had more responsibilities as Pope.

49. Paul was to be delivered from every evil deed (2 Timothy 4:18), meaning that he was infallible.

50. Only Paul is referred to as passing his papal authority on to successors who would also have authority over the church of God (Acts 20:28).

51. Among the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3, the church of Ephesus is mentioned first, since the bishops of Ephesus have primacy as the successors of Paul. The church in Ephesus "cannot endure evil men" (Revelation 2:2), meaning that the bishop of Ephesus is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Ephesian church puts false teachers to the test (Revelation 2:2) by exercising its papal authority. The bishop of Ephesus has the responsibility of evaluating all teachers and declaring which are orthodox and which are not. None of the other churches in Revelation 2-3 are described as having this authority.




"James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars" - Galatians 2:9



On July 7, 2000, James White debated Tim Staples on the subject of papal infallibility. (For information on ordering tapes of the debate, see http://www.aomin.org. To read James White's assessment of the debate, click here.) White mostly discussed some errors made by the Roman bishops Zosimus, Honorius, and Sixtus V. In another article at this web site, I discuss some of the errors of Sixtus V, as well as some errors made by Boniface VIII (http://members.aol.com/jasonte/bullunam. htm). Staples' attempts to reconcile such papal errors with the doctrine of papal infallibility were unconvincing. Specific statements made by the Roman bishops Zosimus and Sixtus V, for example, in which they claimed to be exercising the highest sort of authority, were dismissed by Staples as being somehow unofficial. But when Sixtus V, in his decree Aeternus Ille, claims to be exercising "the fullness of Apostolical power", how could that not apply to the doctrine of papal infallibility? How could Sixtus V be exercising more authority? By citing one half of apostolical power? An eighth, perhaps? I was reminded of something Eric Svendsen wrote:



It is abundantly clear by reading the Catholic apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns papal infallibility. No matter how badly a Pope has erred - morally, doctrinally, or otherwise - no charge against papal infallibility will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Catholic apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst. (Evangelical Answers [Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997], p. 34)



Tim Staples unquestionably lost the debate, and the Roman Catholic Church unquestionably is wrong in what it claims about papal infallibility. However, Staples raised some other issues during the debate as well, and I want to address some of those. Though the debate was about papal infallibility, Staples made some false arguments I want to respond to regarding personal interpretation and the papacy.

But before I discuss those two issues, I want to make one last point regarding papal infallibility. In the 2nd Quarter 2000 issue of Theo~Logical (http://www.cwrc-rz.org), Timothy Kauffman has an article that, in part, discusses the disagreements among Catholics regarding papal infallibility. In the article, Kauffman documents Catholic apologists such as Scott Hahn, Tim Staples, and Leslie Rumble disagreeing among themselves about just what papal infallibility is and just how often it allegedly has been exercised. For example, Kauffman cites Scott Hahn saying that papal infallibility has been exercised only twice, whereas Tim Staples cites four examples and suggests that there are more. Maybe James White should have asked Tim Staples which version of papal infallibility they were debating. Perhaps Scott Hahn and Tim Staples could have debated the issue, then the one voted the winner by the audience could have gone on to debate James White. But even that would still leave us with the question of what the official stance of the Catholic Church is on the issue. Has papal infallibility been exercised only twice? Or four times? Eighteen times, maybe? Of course, such disagreements don't necessarily refute Roman Catholicism. People are fallible. They disagree about a lot of things. But since Catholic apologists so often argue that disagreements among evangelicals invalidate evangelicalism, Catholics ought to be consistent with their own argument. They aren't.

And this leads me to the first of two topics I want to address, aside from papal infallibility. Near the beginning of the debate, Tim Staples argued that papal infallibility is a means of avoiding reliance upon personal interpretation. Later in the debate, Staples made the same sort of argument again. Like many Catholic apologists, Staples apparently thinks that believing whatever the Roman Catholic Church teaches means that you've avoided relying on your own fallible judgment, your interpretation of things. During the segment of the debate when members of the audience asked questions, Staples was asked whether he has probable or infallible knowledge that his rule of faith is correct. He explained that he knew that the Catholic Church's claims are true because of his examination of historical evidence. But such an examination is just the sort of reliance upon fallible personal judgment that Staples condemned earlier. Even after arriving at the conclusion that the Catholic Church has the authority it claims to have, what that institution teaches must be personally interpreted. And as Timothy Kauffman documents in the article I referred to earlier, Catholics often disagree with each other in their interpretations of Catholic teaching. Clearly, personal interpretation is impossible to avoid. The fact that Catholic apologists keep suggesting that they avoid it tells us a lot about how well they've thought through the issues.

Having said these things, I now want to move on to the bulk of this article, regarding the doctrine of the papacy. James White refuted Staples' arguments about papal infallibility, but he didn't respond to much of what Staples claimed about the papacy itself. I want to address some examples of Staples' errors in arguing for the validity of the doctrine of the papacy.



The First Error: When was Peter recognized as Pope?



In his opening remarks, Staples argued that a passage like Matthew 17:24-27 suggests that Peter was the leader of the disciples. After all, why would the tax collectors come to Peter to collect the tax, unless they knew he was the leader of the disciples? Staples also pointed out that, in another passage, John is referred to as saying something to Peter rather than to the other disciples. Why would John speak to Peter rather than to another disciple or to all of them? Peter must have been perceived as the leader of the group.

However, later on, when addressing Luke 22:24, Staples argued that the reason why the disciples didn't perceive Peter as their leader in that passage is because they didn't yet understand the doctrine of the papacy. Notice the inconsistency in Staples' argument. This is a mistake that a lot of Catholic apologists fall into. They argue that passages like Matthew 17:24-27 prove that Peter was the ruler of the disciples, but then they go on to argue that it wasn't until later that it was understood that Peter was the ruler. But how can the tax collectors coming to Peter prove that they viewed him as the leader if they didn't yet understand that Peter was the leader? Clearly, the fact that the tax collectors went to Peter doesn't necessarily mean that he was perceived as a Pope. And what we read in Luke 22:24, Galatians 1-2, and elsewhere proves that Peter wasn't viewed as a Pope by his fellow apostles, much less by non-Christian tax collectors.



The Second Error: Papacy, personality, or something else?



Peter is the most prominent of the twelve disciples, and this fact is something acknowledged by evangelicals, Eastern Orthodox, and other opponents of the doctrine of the papacy. What's disputed is the reason for Peter's prominence. (In addition, it's often pointed out, rightly, that Paul becomes more prominent than Peter later on.) Is Peter prominent early on because he's a Pope? Or for some other reason? As mentioned above, passages like Luke 22:24 make it untenable to argue that Peter's prominence in the gospels is due to a papacy.

What's the explanation, then? Tim Staples and other Catholic apologists seem to assume that Peter being a Pope is the only explanation for his early prominence. But another explanation, Peter's personality, is far more reasonable. This is what I wrote on this subject in a discussion about development of doctrine with the Roman Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong:



As I said in my first reply to Dave, there are a lot of unique things said or done by or about Peter. But there also are a lot of unique things said or done by or about other apostles. Why is it that when I ask a Catholic apologist whether John being referred to as "the beloved disciple" is evidence of a papal primacy of John, he responds as though the thought never occurred to him? Why is it that a Catholic apologist can see the unique reference to John in John 21:22, the fact that only John called himself "the elder", the fact that John lived the longest among the apostles, etc., yet never see any papal implications in any of those things? Why can they see Paul publicly rebuking and correcting Peter, referring to his authority over all churches, referring to the gospel as "my gospel", etc., yet not draw any papal conclusions from such things? Yet, let just about anything unique be said or done by or about Peter and it's a significant "proof" of Peter being a Pope. Is it just me, or does referring to your authority over all churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28) sound more papal than being the first disciple to walk into Jesus' tomb after the resurrection?

So much of what occurs with Peter is related to his personality. He didn't open his mouth more often than other people, try to walk on water, cut off Malchus' ear, etc. because he was a Pope. When he did these things, the disciples apparently had no concept of Peter being their ruler (Luke 22:24). Could Peter's aggressive, risky behavior have something to do with him having an aggressive, risky personality rather than having to do with him being the Pontifex Maximus and the Vicar of Christ on earth? Could Jesus' special care for Peter have something to do with him needing it rather than Jesus viewing him as a Pope? Maybe John didn't need to have a triple affirmation of his love for Christ (John 21:15-17) because he hadn't falsely boasted about how he would never betray Christ, only to give a triple denial of Christ shortly thereafter (Mark 14:66-72). Jesus took a personal, unique approach toward Thomas (John 20:26-29), toward Peter (John 21:15-17), toward John (John 21:22), and toward Paul (Acts 9:3-16). To read papal implications into any of those relationships is absurd. Peter was obviously the foremost of the 12 disciples, but he fades into the background once Paul comes on the scene. And Peter is the foremost of the 12 disciples even during Jesus' earthly ministry, when he wasn't perceived as any sort of Pope (Luke 22:24). Even before Matthew 16 was spoken, we see Peter as unique among the disciples in some ways. To attribute these things to a papal primacy is speculative and irrational. (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/devdef3. htm)



In his debate with James White, Tim Staples read papal implications into not only John 21:15-17, but earlier parts of the chapter as well. For example, he argued that Peter dragging the fishing net to shore (John 21:11) is evidence of his leadership among the disciples. Is it possible that Peter pulled the net because he was a Pope? Yes. Is it also possible that he did it because he reached the shore before the other disciples (John 21:7-8), and he therefore would have had the first opportunity to pull the net forward? Yes. There are many New Testament passages that specifically address matters of church government (1 Corinthians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, etc.). None of them mention a papal office. This is why Catholic apologists are left, literally, with fish stories (John 21:6-11).



The Third Error: Is there only one type of primacy?



One of the worst errors of Catholic apologists is to assume that all opponents of the doctrine of the papacy are opposed to the concept of a primacy of Peter. Yet, Eastern Orthodox, for example, have for centuries advocated a primacy of Peter without believing that Peter was a Pope. In fact, a recent book by some of the 20th century's foremost Eastern Orthodox scholars was titled The Primacy of Peter, John Meyendorff, editor (Crestwood, New York: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992). Obviously, people can believe in a primacy of honor, chronology, etc. without believing in a primacy of jurisdiction. In fact, somebody could even believe that Peter had a primacy of jurisdiction, yet not believe that Roman bishops have it.

During his debate with James White, Tim Staples falsely accused White and others of misrepresenting the church father Cyprian, a North African bishop of the third century. How did White allegedly misrepresent Cyprian? According to Staples, people like James White misrepresent Cyprian by denying that he believed in a primacy of Peter. Staples quoted Cyprian referring to a primacy of Peter in his treatise On the Unity of the Church. (I quote the same passage in the opening remarks of my debate on the papacy with Mark Bonocore of Catholic Apologetics International: http://members.aol.c...e2/debate.htm.) But Staples has missed the point. Evangelical apologists like James White and I don't deny that Cyprian believed in a primacy of Peter. We deny that he believed in a primacy of jurisdiction, and that he believed in a primacy of jurisdiction being passed on exclusively to Roman bishops. By ignoring the fact that there are different types of primacy, Catholic apologists like Tim Staples misrepresent many of the church fathers, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other groups. Just because a group believes in some sort of primacy of Peter, that doesn't prove that it accepts the Roman Catholic definition of primacy.



The Fourth Error: Did the earliest Christians see a papacy in passages like Matthew 16 and John 21?



Tim Staples repeatedly argued that the church fathers viewed Matthew 16:18-19 and John 21:15-17 the way Catholics view it. Let me quote the Roman Catholic historian Yves Congar. This is from a recent edition of his book Tradition and Traditions (San Diego, California: Basilica Press, 1966). This edition bears the Catholic Church's Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, and is endorsed by conservative Catholic apologists like Patrick Madrid and Scott Hahn. (The introduction was written by Patrick Madrid and the foreword by Jeff Cavins, host of the program "Life on the Rock" on the Roman Catholic television network EWTN. The back of the book carries endorsements by Mark Brumley, Curtis Martin, and Scott Hahn.) Congar writes:



But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out an exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. (pp. 398-399)



Regarding John 21, let me quote what is, to my knowledge, the earliest interpretation of this passage by the Roman church itself. In a letter to the clergy of the church of Carthage, the clergy of the third century Roman church wrote (emphasis mine):



To Simon, too, He speaks thus: "Lovest thou me? He answered, I do love Thee. He saith to him, Feed my sheep." [John 21:16] We know that this saying arose out of the very circumstance of his [Peter's] withdrawal, and the rest of the disciples did likewise. We are unwilling, therefore, beloved brethren, that you should be found hirelings, but we desire you to be good shepherds, since you are aware that no slight danger threatens you if you do not exhort our brethren to stand stedfast in the faith, so that the brotherhood be not absolutely rooted out, as being of those who rush headlong into idolatry. (Cyprian's Epistle 2)



The clergy of this third century Roman church seem to have viewed John 21 much as evangelicals view it. Rather than Jesus appointing Peter as a Pope in John 21:15-17, Jesus is giving Peter an opportunity to be restored after his earlier fall. Like the other disciples, Peter had been unfaithful to Jesus. Peter had been unfaithful in a unique way, however. He had denied Christ three times (Mark 14:66-72). Jesus, therefore, gave him the opportunity to affirm his love for Christ three times (John 21:15-17). This explanation of John 21 is more reasonable than the papal interpretation, since it accounts for the fact that Jesus asked Peter the same question three times.

Later on in the passage quoted above, the Roman clergy refer to the clergy of the church of Carthage as "good shepherds". It seems that the Roman church viewed John 21 as applicable to all clergymen as shepherds of the Christian flock. Peter himself makes the same sort of application (1 Peter 5:2).

Peter also writes something else that's relevant. He knew that he was nearing death when he wrote his second epistle (2 Peter 1:13-15). What does he say he's doing in order to assist his readers in remembering his teachings after he dies? Does he tell his readers to look to an infallible Pope in Rome who will always represent Christian orthodoxy? No, instead he refers to the writings he's leaving behind (2 Peter 3:1-2). Peter's role in today's Christian church isn't to be ruler of all Christians on earth through a successor who leads a denomination centered in Rome. Rather, Peter's primary role in the modern Christian church is his contribution to the Bible, especially his two epistles.

The Protestant historian Philip Schaff has a section in his church history titled "The Peter of History and the Peter of Fiction". Schaff explains that, as with James, Mary, and other Biblical figures, Peter was gradually misrepresented and redefined after the time of the apostles. Schaff is referring in part to apocryphal documents of the second and third centuries. However, Schaff’s reference to a "Peter of fiction" isn't just a reference to the early apocryphal documents, but is also a reference to the eventual redefining of Peter as a Pope by the Roman Catholic Church. What Catholic apologists like Tim Staples are giving us is a fictional Peter with fictional successors who have fictional infallibility.

It's not as though the points I've made in this article have never been made before. The question is, when are Catholic apologists going to begin interacting with them? Maybe I should ask, instead, when are they going to begin honestly interacting with them? The answer is "only when they leave the Roman Catholic Church and thus cease to be Catholic apologists", because that's what honesty requires.







"And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me. Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance....This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance; that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles" - 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2

"Obviously, in light of these points, Paul is at least as qualified as Peter (if not more so) to hold ecclesial primacy. Of course, it would be nonsense to conclude from all this that Paul was a pope. But that is just the point; the Catholic apologist engages in special pleading when he points to all the passages that seem to single out Peter in an attempt to demonstrate Petrine primacy, but concludes something completely different about those passages that single out Paul in a very similar way." - Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997), p. 22




"do not suppose that you can say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham for our father'; for I say to you, that God is able from these stones to raise up children to Abraham" - Matthew 3:9



There are a lot of groups that claim some sort of historical lineage from the apostles (successionist Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Roman Catholics, Copts, etc.). The significance of such an alleged succession from the apostles is disputed, even among those who claim to have it. Some of these groups attach claims of infallibility and authority to their alleged successions, while others don't. Roman Catholics, for example, claim that the Pope is the successor of the apostle Peter, and that he's infallible and the ruler of all Christians on earth as a result. Successionist Baptists, on the other hand, don't assign any infallibility or authority claims to their alleged succession.

Elsewhere at this web site, I document a lot of the problems with these succession claims, including the many contradictions among the people who claim succession, even contradictions within a single line of succession (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/rccp.htm). Jesus and the apostles never said anything about post-apostolic men having the sort of infallibility and authority some of them claim to have today.

But, setting those things aside for the moment, what about the successions themselves? Even if we overlook the problems with the infallibility and authority claims of these successions, are there actual successions from the apostles to begin with? If there is no unbroken lineage in the first place, then it's not even necessary to go on to discuss the alleged infallibility or authority of such a lineage.

The most popular claim of apostolic succession, and the one that claims the most authority, is that of the bishop of Rome, the papacy. In another article at this web site, I document that many Roman bishops who are considered Popes today weren't legitimate bishops by the standards of 1 Timothy 3:1-7 (http://members.aol.com/jasonte/papacy.htm). The Roman Catholic Church acknowledges that a bishop must be legitimate in order for there to be an unbroken succession. That's why dozens of claimants to the bishopric of the Roman church are now considered antipopes, false Popes. But aside from the problem posed for the claims of the papacy by 1 Timothy 3:1-7, there are numerous other problems as well. Early on, not only were there multiple churches in Rome, but there were multiple bishops of each church as well. The monarchical episcopate, one bishop who was ruler over the other leaders in a church, didn't become popular until the second century. And it seems that it wasn't until well into the second century before one bishop emerged as the ruler of all Christians in Rome (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/jasonte8. htm). In later centuries, other problems arose with the alleged unbroken succession of Roman bishops. There were a lot of times when numerous people claimed the papacy at once and some Roman bishops were appointed by political leaders, for example. The Roman Catholic Church has no consistent standard for determining who is and who isn't a legitimate bishop of Rome. The Anglican historian J.N.D. Kelly gives us some examples in his Oxford Dictionary of Popes (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996):



[Anacletus'] actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised, for the monarchical, or one-man, episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome....

The legitimacy of [Pope Leo VIII's] pontificate, at least until [Pope] John XII's death, has been contested; it depends on the validity, debated among canonists, of John's deposition....

[Pope Silvester III's] right to be considered an authentic pope is open to question....

Usually classified as an antipope, [Alexander V's] claim to be an authentic pope is still debated, and some historians give him the compromise description of 'council pope'. (pp. 7, 127, 144, 237)



Many other examples could be cited, but the above are representative. Having an alleged lineage from the apostles doesn't assure a group of being correct, as the many contradictions among groups claiming succession prove. But the question can be pushed back even further if we ask, are there even any unbroken successions to begin with, regardless of what authority we would assign to such a succession if it existed?




"Since your Majesty and your Lordships ask for a plain answer, I will give you one without either horns or teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture or by right reason (for I trust neither in popes nor in councils, since they have often erred and contradicted themselves) - unless I am thus convinced, I am bound by the texts of the Bible, my conscience is captive to the Word of God" - Martin Luther (cited in R.C. Sproul, Faith Alone [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1995], pp. 54-55)



Advocates of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other religions often cite Popes and councils as though they're just as authoritative as scripture. But Popes and councils, even ecumenical councils, have often erred and contradicted one another, and have repeatedly contradicted the teachings of Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, and other religions that cite them as authoritative. Popes have contradicted and anathematized other Popes. The Second Council of Ephesus was convoked as ecumenical, but isn't accepted as such today. The Council of Constance said that councils have authority over Popes, while the First Vatican Council said that Popes have authority over councils. The Council of Florence taught that non-Roman-Catholics cannot be saved, while the Second Vatican Council taught that they can be saved. Etc. Councils that were once considered ecumenical are now not considered ecumenical, and councils that once weren't considered ecumenical now are considered ecumenical. There isn't even agreement about what makes a council ecumenical.

Not only is there such evidence that Popes and councils are fallible, but, unlike scripture, there's no reason to believe in the infallibility of Popes and councils to begin with. Scripture can be traced back to Jesus and the apostles, and is supported by prophecy and other evidence. There is no such evidence supporting the Divine authority of Popes and councils. If there's no reason to believe that Popes and councils would be infallible, and the history of Popes and councils demonstrates that they aren't infallible, why should anybody believe that they are? When the apostle Peter was nearing death, he wrote that he was leaving behind written documents, not Popes and councils, to remind people of what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2).

What follows are some examples of the unreliability of Popes and councils. As you read these examples, ask yourself if there's any reason to believe that Popes and councils are as authoritative as scripture.



Popes



Popes, at least Roman bishops who would later be called Popes, have often erred and contradicted one another. Liberius supported Arianism. Honorius taught Monothelitism, and was condemned as a heretic by an ecumenical council and by other Popes. Eugenius IV taught that non-Roman-Catholics can't be saved. Sixtus V issued an erroneous version of the Bible, and commanded everybody to accept it. Etc.

The Catholic historian Klaus Schatz gives the following example of a Pope erring in his book Papal Primacy (Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996). Though this incident, or series of incidents, occurred in the sixth century, when the concept of a papacy had already become popular in some regions, it illustrates how inconsistent acceptance of the doctrine was even in the West. People would sometimes attribute papal authority to the bishop of Rome when they agreed with him on an issue, but would deny such authority on other occasions, when they disagreed with him. In other words, even as late as the sixth century, the concept of the papacy was still doubted, and its acceptance wavered. Even in the West, it was acknowledged that Popes could err on faith and morals, and Popes weren't always considered the highest authority in the church. The doctrine of the papacy didn't exist in the earliest centuries of Christianity (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials. htm), and was still uncertain and being refined and redefined as late as the sixth century. Schatz writes the following about the "three chapters" and Pope Vigilius (emphasis in bold mine):



The next controversy, the "three chapters" dispute, led to an unexampled low point in papal authority not only in the East but even more in the West. The historical background was that Rome had been under Byzantine rule since 536. For more than two centuries the popes were subject to the emperor in Constantinople. During that period the pope elected by the clergy and people of Rome had to be confirmed by the emperor as well; only after receiving that confirmation could he be consecrated.

The "three chapters" affair had to do with the emperor Justinian's attempt to achieve union with the Monophysites by arranging for the condemnation after the fact of three theologians (Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus, and Ibas of Edessa), or rather their writings. All of them had belonged to the Antiochene wing. Justinian thought he would not be able to cleanse the Council of Chalcedon from the Monophysites' charge that it had been a "Nestorian" synod as long as these three theologians, each of them a thorn in the side of the Monophysites, were recognized as orthodox. Of course, he had to win over the pope to this way of thinking. Pope Vigilius (537-555), who had very little backbone in conflict situations, first gave way and condemned the three chapters in his Iudicatum of 548. Faced with a storm of protest in the West, where the pope was accused of betraying Chalcedon, he made an about-face and retracted his condemnation (Constitutum, 553). The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 ("Where two or three are gathered in my name. . ."): no individual [including the Pope] could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at the council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters.

The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome. (Milan returned to communion only after fifty years; for Aquileia the breach lasted one hundred and fifty years, until 700). The bishops of Gaul also raised objections. The Spanish Church did not separate from Rome, but throughout the early Middle Ages it refused to recognize this council. The authority of the papacy in the West had suffered a severe blow with regard to dogma as well. The shock still echoed half a century later in a letter written by the Irish missionary Columbanus to Pope Boniface IV on his arrival in Italy. It is a rather peculiar letter, concealing blunt criticism behind a deliberately jocular humility. Columbanus describes himself as a "strange bird" (rara avis) and addresses the pope as pulcherrimo omnium totius Europae (most beautiful of all Europeans). He goes on inventing pompous titles like this, saying that he writes as "a peasant to a cultivated man" (agrestis urbano) and so on. But the crisis of authority in Rome resulting from Vigilius' actions is bluntly described: "It is sad when the catholic faith is not preserved by the apostolic see." Central to the letter is his demand that the pope be watchful: "Vigila," he writes imploringly, with a clever play on words, "see that it doesn't turn out for you as it did for Vigilius, qui non vigilavit." If he is not alert,

the lower orders will rightly oppose you and break ecclesial communion
with you until all is forgotten. If these things are all too true and no in-
vention, the normal situation of the Church will be reversed. Your chil-
dren will become the head, but you - how painful it is to say - will
become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who
have always preserved the catholic faith, whoever they may be, even the
youngest, for then they will be the orthodox and true catholics since they
have never accepted or defended heretics or those suspected of heresy,
but have remained zealous for the true faith.

Vigilius' successors found themselves in a very unenviable position; they were stuck between the chairs. In the West it was not as important to impose Constantinople II as it was to defend themselves and the council with difficulty against the charge of heresy and to emphasize that Chalcedon had not been abandoned. This was not accomplished without some interpretations that watered down and minimized the importance of Constantinople II. However, the problem posed for the papacy by that council has not really been resolved to this day. (pp. 52-54)



Councils



Hans Kung writes in his book Infallible? An Unresolved Enquiry (New York, New York: Continuum, 1994, emphasis in bold mine):



The ecumenicity of a council is not a priori certain. After the First Ecumenical Council of Nicea in 325 its acknowledgment by the Church as a whole was regarded as of fundamental importance. Athanasius, the champion of the Council of Nicea, often enumerated all the Churches taking part. The more modem sobornost theory, which dates back to Khomiakov and is supported by many Slavonic theologians (in the present century by Sergii Bulgakov in particular), sees recognition by the Church as a whole as a necessary qualification for the ecumenicity of a council. Recognition of an ecumenical council by the particular Churches must not, of course, be understood as a kind of retrospective referendum that might deny such a council the right of making binding decisions on questions of faith. But the necessity of recognition or acceptance of a council by the Church as a whole that is documented by history implies at least that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that a council has been convoked and conducted as an ecumenical council that is has the truth on its side. This last becomes evident only when its propositions come to prevail in the Church, that is, when the Church recognizes in these propositions its own experience of faith.

[mustbenothing]

Actually there were councils that were not convoked or conducted as ecumenical but have nevertheless come to be accepted as ecumenical; such were the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381 and the Fifth at Constantinople in 553. Also the canons of smaller Eastern synods, such as those of Ancyra in 314, Neocaesaria (Pontus) in 320, Antioch in 329 (?), Gangra (Asia Minor) in 342, and Laodicea (Phrygia) in 350, by gaining acceptance acquired importance in the West too. But the converse is also true. Councils that were convoked as ecumenical failed to establish themselves; such were the Council of Sardica, the Second Council of Ephesus in 449, the Second Trullan Synod, and also the general synods of the West at Arles in 314 and Rome in 341.

The historian H. Jedin rightly observes that 'for the first thousand years and beyond, the intention and will of the convokers of a council were not sufficient to establish its ecumenicity; nor did the acknowledgment of its decisions by the Pope during this period serve as formal confirmation of its ecumenicity as it clearly did in the case of later councils. The recognition of these twenty councils as ecumenical is not attributable to any comprehensive legislative act by the papacy covering them all, but established itself in the theory and practice of the Church.’

If the ecumenicity of a council is not a priori certain, its infallibility is still less so. The determining factor is not the will to make infallible definitions, but the intrinsic truth of the council's decisions that inevitably imposes itself on the Church's sense of faith.

2. Councils have corrected one another. When ecumenical councils began, there was not the feeling that came into existence later that their words were, as it were, inspired. At the early christological councils in particular there were a very large number of terminological and conceptual changes. The councils of Nicea and Sardica assumed, with many of the Fathers, that there was only one hypostasis of the Godhead; the First Council of Constantinople and the Council of Chalcedon assumed, with many others, that there were three. Also there were instances in which an earlier council was specifically rejected. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 rejected the decisions of the Second Council of Ephesus of 449, the ecumenicity of which was therefore not accepted, though it had been convoked as ecumenical; and the Council of Constantinople in 754 rejected the veneration of images, which the Second Council of Nicea in 787 approved.

Finally, there are instances of decisions by ecumenical councils being amended by a later council. Thus the Council of Chalcedon in 451 specifically amended the decision of the First Council of Ephesus in 431, which was recognized as ecumenical and under the leadership of Cyril of Alexandria had condemned and excommunicated Nestorius of Antioch. Though Chalcedon commended Cyril and the condemnation of Nestorius, by its new formulation of faith it nevertheless recognized the claims of Antioch theology and specifically rejected the central doctrine of Alexandrine christology which had dominated the two councils of Ephesus, the idea of the one nature in Christ. Thus the Patriarch Nestorius, who was condemned at Ephesus in 431 and 449, would have been able to subscribe completely to the formulation of faith laid down at Chalcedon in 451, to which Cyril, the leading spirit at Ephesus I, could have subscribed only with open or secret reservations, and to which Dioscorus, the leading spirit at Ephesus II (who was excommunicated by Chalcedon), could not have subscribed at all (Ephesus II came to be known in history as the 'robber synod').

There is a locus classicus in St Augustine that says: 'Who would not know that the holy canonical Scriptures both of the Old and New Testament have a priority over all subsequent writings of bishops such that there cannot be any doubt or dispute at all as to whether whatever is written there is true or right; but that the writings of bishops after the settlement of the canon may be refuted both by the perhaps wiser words of anyone more experienced in the matter and by the weightier authority and more scholarly prudence of other bishops, and also by councils, if something in them perhaps has deviated from the truth; and that even councils held in particular regions or provinces must without quibbling give way (sine ullis ambagibus cedere) to the authority of plenary councils of the whole Christian world; and that even the earlier plenary councils are often (saepe) corrected (emendari) by later ones, if as a result of practical experience (cum aliquo experimento rerum) something that was closed is opened, something that was hidden becomes known?’

Now, if ecumenical councils differ with one another, disavow one another, specifically reject or actually correct one another in this way, it is impossible, not only in the light of the gospel message, as we have shown, but also in the light of council history to accept the a priori infallibility of ecumenical councils (pp. 167-169)







"And I think it right, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that the putting off of my tabernacle cometh swiftly, even as our Lord Jesus Christ signified unto me. Yea, I will give diligence that at every time ye may be able after my decease to call these things to remembrance....This is now, beloved, the second epistle that I write unto you; and in both of them I stir up your sincere mind by putting you in remembrance; that ye should remember the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and the commandments of the Lord and Saviour through your apostles" - 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2




According to the First Vatican Council and other authoritative Catholic sources, a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed and been "ever understood" by the Christian church since the time of Peter (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/jasonte1. htm). However, the following five facts of history make this claim of the Catholic Church untenable:



1. There are no explicit references to a papacy in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Catholic apologists often suggest that a papacy is alluded to in Matthew 16, John 21, First Clement, Against Heresies, and other early documents, but all of these documents can reasonably be interpreted in non-papal ways. There are explicit references to the church offices of bishop and deacon, as well as doctrines such as Christ's deity, the Trinity, and the eucharist, but there aren't any explicit references to a papacy.

2. Many of the words and actions of the earliest Christians contradict the concept of a papacy. The disciples repeatedly argued about who was the greatest among them, even after the words of Matthew 16:18-19 were spoken (Luke 22:24). The disciples don't seem to have had any concept of Peter having been established as their ruler. Paul wrote about apostles (plural), not a Pope, being the highest order in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28). He also wrote that, in terms of apostolic authority, he was in no way inferior to any other apostle (2 Corinthians 12:11). Many events in early post-apostolic church history, such as Polycarp's disagreements with the Roman bishop Anicetus and Cyprian's disagreements with the Roman bishop Stephen, also contradict the concept of a papacy (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials. htm).

3. The earliest non-Christian sources who commented on Christianity said nothing about a papacy. Though Pliny the Younger, Celsus, Lucian, and other early non-Christian sources wrote about the eucharist, Christ's deity, and other Christian doctrines, they didn't say anything about a papacy. If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, the "Vicar of Christ" and "Bishop of bishops", he would have been an ideal object of criticism. None of the earliest non-Christian sources seem to have any concept of a papacy, though.

4. The earliest interpretations of the scripture passages most often cited in favor of a papacy are all non-papal. Tertullian (On Modesty, 21) writes that Peter was the "rock" of Matthew 16:18 in the sense that he played a major role in founding the Christian church. He identifies the usage of the "keys" of Matthew 16:19 not as papal authority, but as the preaching of the gospel and the exercising of church discipline. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 10-11) writes that everybody who confesses the faith Peter confessed in Matthew 16:18 is also a "rock". He emphasizes that Matthew 16:18 doesn't apply only to Peter, and he says nothing about this passage applying in any exclusive way to the bishops of Rome. Cyprian (Epistle 26) writes that all bishops, not just the bishop of Rome, are the successors of Peter, so that Matthew 16:18 applies to all of them. The Apostolical Constitutions (6:5) refers to Luke 22:32 as a passage about the faith of all Christians, and says nothing of a papacy or of this passage referring to papal infallibility. Cyril of Alexandria, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and other church fathers also interpreted Matthew 16, Luke 22, and John 21 in non-Roman-Catholic ways. Some church fathers even applied multiple interpretations to these passages of scripture, but the earliest church fathers never applied the Roman Catholic interpretations to these passages.

5. Men like Clement of Alexandria (The Stromata), Cyprian (On the Unity of the Church), and Augustine (Sermons) wrote entire treatises relating to church government and Christian doctrine without mentioning a papacy. Offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned over and over again, councils are discussed, and the authority of scripture is referred to again and again, yet nobody in the earliest centuries of Christianity writes about papal authority. There are treatises instructing Christians on how to interpret scripture, explaining how to view doctrines like the incarnation and the Trinity, and encouraging Christians to obey bishops and other church leaders. There are no treatises devoted to a papal office, though, nor is a papacy even mentioned. For example, the influential bishop of Carthage, Cyprian, wrote a treatise on church government and unity (On the Unity of the Church) that not only doesn't mention a papacy, but even contradicts the concept.



In light of these five realities of history, the Roman Catholic Church's claims about the papacy are historically untenable. Catholics are encouraged to believe in transubstantiation, Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other doctrines because of papal authority, yet that authority is without foundation.




"Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." - Acts 17:11



The Roman Catholic Church claims that a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter, and that it was recognized as such by the Christian church at that time. The First Vatican Council claimed in chapter 1 of session 4 (emphasis mine):



We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord....

At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.



These claims of the Roman Catholic Church don't leave much room for development. If a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter and has been "ever understood" as such by the Catholic Church, then development can't be cited to explain widespread absence of the doctrine and widespread contradictions of it in the early centuries of church history. And if the First Vatican Council is wrong about this subject, then why should we trust the other claims of the First Vatican Council? Or the Second Vatican Council?

While Peter is mentioned a lot in the gospels and in the earliest chapters of Acts, often this is because he's the most outspoken and the most rash of the disciples (Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 26:33, Mark 9:5, John 18:10). This is why Peter received so much attention from Jesus (Matthew 16:23, Luke 22:31-34, John 18:11, John 21:15-17). From the second half of Acts forward, however, Paul is mentioned much more than Peter. Paul ends up writing much more of the New Testament than Peter does, and the earliest church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak more of Paul than they do of Peter, and they make statements about Paul that are more exalted than what they say about Peter. Paul, by far, receives the most attention early on, even though Peter became more popular among many of the church fathers who wrote from the third century onward.

Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 1 Corinthians 12:28, 2 Corinthians 12:11, Galatians 1:1, 2:6-9).

Did Jesus think that Peter was a shepherd in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? Apparently not. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John's future is none of his (Peter's) concern (John 21:21-22).

The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, 1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter's testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn't settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that's sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority.

Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of mother church that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn't have done if he didn't have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to apostles as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of the apostles generally.

Peter himself seems to have had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn't say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority.

Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn't a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It's even contradicted by Paul's references to his equality with and independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn't contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable.

The truth is that the papacy is an institution that took hundreds of years to come into being. Catholic apologists try to force a post-apostolic institution into the writings of the apostles (Colossians 2:8). To see a papacy in the New Testament, the Catholic apologist must:

1.) rely on speculative interpretations of passages like Matthew 16:18-19 and Luke 22:32 (Where do any of these passages mention papal authority or successors?)

2.) dismiss the absence of any mention of a papacy in dozens of passages that specifically address church government (Ephesians 4, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, etc.)

3.) dismiss passages that contradict the doctrine of the papacy (Paul having authority over all the churches, Paul asserting his equality with and independence from the other apostles, etc.)

4.) assume that unique things said or done by or about Peter are evidence that he was a Pope, while denying any papal implications when something unique is said or done by or about another apostle

Basically, the Catholic apologist reads something between the lines that cannot be proven to be a part of the thinking of the writers of the New Testament. How credible is it, then, when the Catholic Church claims that the papacy is a "clear doctrine" of scripture that was "ever understood" by the Christian church? It's not credible at all. Considering that Purgatory, indulgences, the Immaculate Conception, and other speculative doctrines are founded upon the alleged authority of the Pope, the fact that the doctrine of the papacy is so speculative raises a question. Are Catholics more concerned with truth or with their own philosophical preference for there being an institution with all of the authority that the Catholic Church claims to have?




"We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord." - First Vatican Council, session 4, chapter 1

"in no respect was I inferior to the most eminent apostles" - 2 Corinthians 12:11



In the earliest years of Christianity, there was no monarchical episcopate, no office of one man who would rule over a church. Churches were led by multiple bishops, also known as elders, presbyters, and overseers. Around the end of the first century or early in the second century, monarchical episcopates developed in some regions. The church father Ignatius was an advocate of having one bishop lead each church, for example. That isn't the form of church government instituted by the apostles, though.

Throughout the New Testament, and in the earliest Christian writings outside of the New Testament, the offices of bishop, elder, and presbyter (sometimes referred to as "overseer") are the same. Those terms are used interchangeably to refer to the same office. (Compare Acts 20:17 with Acts 20:28, and compare Titus 1:5 with Titus 1:7.) When Paul wrote to the Philippian church, he greeted the overseers and deacons (Philippians 1:1), but didn't mention any other church office. When the Roman church wrote to the Corinthian church near the end of the first century, it referred to the apostles establishing only two church offices (1 Clement 42), and it approvingly referred to the presence of multiple bishops in Corinth (1 Clement 44). In other words, throughout the Christian documents of the first century, there are only two church offices (the first being bishops/presbyters/elders/overseers and the second being deacons), and churches are led by multiple bishops, not one bishop. This is problematic for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church, because if there was no monarchical episcopate (one bishop ruling over each church) during the time of the apostles, then why should we believe that there was one monarchical bishop in Rome who was a Pope?

What makes Catholic claims about an early papacy even less credible are the conflicting accounts of who led the early Roman church. Different sources say different things. Catholic apologists will often point to the list of Roman bishops that Irenaeus wrote late in the second century, because it aligns with the latest list that the Roman Catholic Church uses, but lists from other early sources contradict the list of Irenaeus. All of these lists come from the second half of the second century or later, and most likely were composed as a means of opposing heresy. In other words, lists of a succession of bishops going back to the time of the apostles would be composed in order to make the current bishops appear to have authority as successors of the apostles. James White explains (http://www.aomin.org/1296CATR.html):



First and foremost, there is tremendous confusion concerning the early "lists" of the bishops of Rome, and for good reason. Different sources give different renderings. Why? As simple as it may sound, the reason is easily discovered: no one really cared for the first century of the history of the church at Rome. All the lists come from at the earliest many decades later, and show a concern that did not arise until the Church as a whole began struggling with heresy and began formulating concepts of authority to use against heretics. But in those first decades, even into the middle of the second century, no one was particularly concerned about who the bishop of Rome was. Why? Because no one had the concepts that Rome now presents as "ancient." No one thought the bishop of any one church was above any other, or that the bishop of Rome was somehow invested with any particular authority....What's more, there is a fatal historical fact that is overlooked consistently by Roman Catholic apologists. Joseph F. Kelly in his The Concise Dictionary of Early Christianity (The Liturgical Press, 1992), p. 2, notes,

The word "pope" was not used exclusively of the bishop of Rome until the ninth century, and it is likely that in the earliest Roman community a college of presbyters rather than a single bishop provided the leadership.

J.N.D. Kelly likewise notes this reality:

In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter-bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (p. 6).

When speaking of Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Telesphorus, and Hyginus (to A.D. 142), Kelly consistently notes the same thing: there was no monarchical episcopate in Rome at this time! Only with Hyginus does he say that the monarchical episcopate is beginning to emerge, and does so with Pius 1, 142-155 A.D.

What does this mean? Well, it's pretty hard for there to be an exercise of "papal authority" when there is no papacy! The primitive form of church government found in Rome is the biblical one: a plurality of elders.



Though there were concepts of apostolic succession among some of the earliest church fathers, it should be understood that the earliest concepts of apostolic succession weren't the same as the concept the Roman Catholic Church embraces today. For example, Ignatius, though apparently an acquaintance of the apostle John and a bishop, wrote to the Roman church:



I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles of Jesus Christ (4)



So the early church, unlike today's Catholic Church, recognized that the apostles had unique authority. No alleged apostolic successor could have as much authority as the apostles had. Some church fathers did embrace the concept of apostolic succession, but the early concepts weren't the same as the modern Catholic concept. Although the early church did eventually produce lists of bishops in order to oppose heresy, that doesn't prove that the early church believed in the Roman Catholic concept of apostolic succession, and the lists are sometimes unreliable anyway. The Protestant historian Philip Schaff explains:



The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter; but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter. In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.

Lipsius, after a laborious critical comparison of the different catalogues of popes, arrives at the conclusion that Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were Roman presbyters (or presbyter-bishops in the N. T. sense of the term), at the close of the first century, Evaristus and Alexander presbyters at the beginning of the second, Xystus I. (Latinized: Sixtus), presbyter for ten years till about 128, Telesphorus for eleven years, till about 139, and next successors diocesan bishops. (The Master Christian Library [Albany, Oregon: AGES Software, 1998], History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, pp. 145-146)



If there was no papacy early on, then how did the office arise? And how were people deceived into accepting it?

In the early centuries of Christianity, the Roman church eventually achieved a reputation for faith, love, and generosity (Paul's epistle to the Romans, Ignatius' epistle to the Romans). It was located in the capital of the Roman Empire, it had withstood a lot of persecutions, and some of the most prominent of the apostles ministered there and were even persecuted or martyred there (Paul, Peter, and John). With only a few exceptions (Modalism, Arianism, the canonicity of Hebrews, etc.), the Roman church was perceived as being faithful to what the apostles had taught during the first few centuries of Christianity.

Around the end of the second century, Irenaeus, a church leader and apologist, believed that the Roman church was so faithful to what the apostles taught, that it was the ultimate example of orthodoxy among the churches, so that everybody who claims to be a Christian must agree with the Roman church. He goes on to mention the churches in Ephesus and Smyrna as representing apostolic doctrine as well, but he used Rome as the primary example. As the Catholic historian Robert Eno explains in The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, Inc., 1990):



The context of Irenaeus' argument does not claim that the Roman Church is literally unique, the only one of its class; rather, he argues that the Roman Church is the outstanding example of its class, the class in question being apostolic sees. While he chose to speak primarily of Rome for brevity's sake, in fact, before finishing, he also referred to Ephesus and Smyrna. (p. 39)



Although this passage from Irenaeus is often cited by Catholic apologists as evidence of an early papacy, it actually says nothing about a papal office. The reasons Irenaeus gives for considering the Roman church to be the ultimate example of orthodoxy are its location in the capital of the world, its age, its having been ministered to by Peter and Paul, and its history of faithfulness to apostolic teaching. (Irenaeus wrote this before the Roman church fell into Modalism, Arianism, and other errors.) In other words, the reasons Irenaeus gave for upholding the Roman church as the ultimate example of orthodoxy were practical, not papal. He refers to Peter and Paul as the two greatest apostles, making no distinction between them, and though he mentions Roman bishops, he says nothing about Peter having been bishop of Rome. To the contrary, he refers to Linus being appointed bishop of Rome while Peter is still alive. Irenaeus doesn't say anything at all about a papal office. In his series of books written against the Gnostics, he never uses an argument of papal authority to refute them. The same can be said for other church fathers who wrote against heresy. Nobody in the early centuries of Christianity mentions a papal office, even when addressing issues of church government and doctrinal authority. Men like Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen wrote a lot about church government, authority, and doctrine, but never said a word about a papal office. Irenaeus, though he respected the Roman church for practical reasons, said nothing about a papacy, and even referred to Rome's regional authority in a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials. htm). The only Roman primacy Irenaeus believed in was a primacy of the correctness of a church, not the jurisdiction of a bishop. As J.B. Lightfoot wrote:



The substitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome is an all important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the successor of S. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, as a matter of fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the Church of Rome. (cited at http://www.aomin.org/1296CATR.html)



Aside from the absence of any mention of a papal office in the earliest centuries, there's also much evidence against such an office existing. Paul exercised authority over the Roman church (epistle to the Romans), as he did with every other church (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), which is irreconcilable with what the Catholic Church has taught about papal and Roman authority. Ignatius, a bishop of the early second century, refers to the bishop of the local church, not the bishop of Rome, as the highest office in the church (http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials. htm). Polycarp, Cyprian, and other church leaders in the earliest centuries are known to have disagreed with the bishop of Rome on a number of issues. They didn't view the bishop of Rome as somebody they had to submit to. Cyprian repeatedly wrote about the independence of each bishop. The New Testament passages most often cited in favor of a papacy by Catholic apologists (Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:32, John 21:15-17) were interpreted in non-papal ways by the earliest commentators. Firmilian and Cyprian even cited Matthew 16:18-19 against the bishop of Rome, and in favor of the independence of each bishop, in a dispute over baptism in the third century.

However, despite some errors and despite some disputes with other churches, the reputation of the Roman church grew, and its bishops claimed more and more authority with the passing of time. Though it sometimes taught error, the Roman church didn't fall into heresy as often as some of the churches in the East did. James White summarizes the situation as follows (http://www.aomin.org/1296CATR.html):



Roman supremacy developed over time, beginning with the geographical, social, and political advantages associated with being in the capital of the Empire. Rome was the only Western apostolic see; the East had multiple apostolic sees, including Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and eventually Constantinople as well. It is hardly a coincidence that Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy to this day demonstrate in their ecclesiology the very differences one would expect to arise from the facts of history: Rome demanding allegiance to one, centralized authority in the bishop of Rome, while Orthodoxy, forced by history to deal with multiple centers of authority, presents a concept of "collegiality."

When Rome the Empire fell, the bishop of Rome stepped into the vacuum, and the rest, as they say, is "history." But to make this historical development one that was intended by Christ and implemented by the Apostles, is to read into history a reality that is not only absent, but is contrary to the actual facts.



A lot of different factors - location in the capital of the Roman Empire, a reputation of love, being the location of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul, doctrinal correctness, etc. - led to the Roman church's growth in reputation and power. It wasn't until later, however, that passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 were cited as the reasons for Rome's authority. As Peter de Rosa wrote in Vicars of Christ (New York, New York: Crown Publishers, 1988), "The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels." (p. 25) In other words, the Roman church gradually rose in power for practical reasons, but the power, once achieved, was later attributed to Divine appointment.

Though the concept of the papacy was rejected in the East, it gained acceptance in the West. Once the West was convinced to give more and more power to the Roman church - a process that took centuries - the Roman church was able to teach almost anything it wanted to, and have that teaching accepted just because it came from the Roman church. This led to the acceptance of all sorts of false teaching promoted in papal decrees and councils: anti-Semitism, Crusades, the Inquisition, indulgences, etc. What began as a rise in the Roman church's influence for practical reasons has become a denomination that's followed by hundreds of millions of people as though it was established as the infallible standard of truth by Christ Himself. It's an illustration of what Jesus condemned in Matthew 15:9 and what Paul warned against in Colossians 2:8.







"I will now make them another concession, which they will never obtain from men of sound mind, viz., that the primacy of the Church was fixed in Peter, with the view of remaining for ever by perpetual succession. Still how will they prove that his See was so fixed at Rome, that whosoever becomes bishop of that city is to preside over the whole world? By what authority do they annex this dignity to a particular place, when it was given without any mention of place? Peter, they say, lived and died at Rome. What did Christ himself do? Did he not discharge his episcopates while he lived, and complete the office of the priesthood by dying at Jerusalem? The Prince of pastors, the chief Shepherd, the Head of the Church, could not procure honour for a place, and Peter, so far his inferior, could! Is not this worse than childish trifling? Christ conferred the honour of primacy on Peter. Peter had his See at Rome, therefore, he fixed the seat of the primacy there. In this way the Israelites of old must have placed the seat of the primacy in the wilderness, where Moses, the chief teacher and prince of prophets, discharged his ministry and died. Let us see, however, how admirably they reason. Peter, they say, had the first place among the apostles; therefore, the church in which he sat ought to have the privilege. But where did he first sit? At Antioch, they say. Therefore, the church of Antioch justly claims the primacy. They acknowledge that she was once the first, but that Peter, by removing from it, transferred the honour which he had brought with him to Rome. For there is extant, under the name of Pope Marcellus, a letter to the presbyters of Antioch, in which he says, 'The See of Peter, at the outset, was with you, and was afterwards, by the order of the Lord, translated hither.' Thus the church of Antioch, which was once the first, yielded to the See of Rome. But by what oracle did that good man learn that the Lord had so ordered? For if the question is to be determined in regular forms they must say whether they hold the privilege to be personal, or real, or mixed. One of the three it must be. If they say personal, then it has nothing to do with place; if real, then when once given to a place it is not lost by the death or departure of the person. It remains that they must hold it to be mixed; then the mere consideration of place is not sufficient unless the person also correspond. Let them choose which they will, I will forthwith infer, and easily prove, that Rome has no ground to arrogate the primacy." - John Calvin (Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4:6:11-12)




"If anyone, therefore, shall say that blessed Peter the Apostle was not appointed the Prince of all the Apostles and the visible Head of the whole Church Militant; or that the same directly and immediately received from the same our Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and proper jurisdiction: let him be anathema." - First Vatican Council, session 4, chapter 1

"you put to the test those who call themselves apostles, and they are not, and you found them to be false" - Revelation 2:2



Popes claim to be the successors of the apostle Peter, which supposedly gives them authority over all Christians on earth. The New Testament doesn't say anything about Peter having authority over the other apostles, Peter having successors with that same authority, those successors being Roman bishops, etc. Aside from reading unverifiable assumptions into passages like Matthew 16 and John 21, Catholic apologists appeal to the writings of men who lived after the apostles.

But what if these post-apostolic men, the church fathers, didn't actually believe in the doctrine of the papacy? If Catholic apologists must speculate in order to see a papacy in the New Testament, and the church fathers don't teach the doctrine either, what reason is there to accept the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church? While Catholic apologists can find more apparent evidence of an early papacy in the writings of the church fathers than in the New Testament, even the church fathers' writings don't actually support the doctrine.

The earliest post-apostolic writing from a church father, though often cited by Catholic apologists as evidence of a papacy, actually denies Petrine supremacy. The author of this letter, commonly referred to as First Clement, is unknown. The letter itself says that it's from the Roman church, and it uses the plural "we" throughout. However, later writers claimed that the letter was written by a man named Clement, who may have been a disciple of the apostle Paul (Philippians 4:3), and he probably was one of the bishops of the Roman church. (It seems that a monarchical episcopate hadn't arisen yet in Rome, meaning that the Roman church was led by multiple bishops rather than one. Clement may have been one of the multiple bishops leading the Roman church near the end of the first century, when First Clement was written.) The reason why Catholic apologists cite this letter as alleged evidence of a papacy is because it's a letter of advice to the Corinthian church, telling it how it should resolve a dispute concerning its bishops. The letter mentions nothing of a papacy, though, but instead is a letter of advice from one sister church to another. Similar letters were written by other church leaders, such as Ignatius' letter to Polycarp and Polycarp's letter to the Philippian church. It was common practice for churches and church leaders to write to one another with advice, rebuke, requests, etc. This wasn't something that only the Roman church did. Only by taking the letter out of this context, and by reading assumptions into it, can it be portrayed as evidence of a papacy.

Not only does First Clement not mention a papal office, but it even contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine. It teaches salvation through faith alone, for example (chapter 32). In regard to the papacy, First Clement comments on 1 Corinthians 1:12 in a way that amounts to a denial of Petrine supremacy:



Truly, under the inspiration of the Spirit, he [Paul] wrote to you concerning himself, and Cephas, and Apollos, because even then parties had been formed among you. But that inclination for one above another entailed less guilt upon you, inasmuch as your partialities were then shown towards apostles, already of high reputation, and towards a man whom they had approved [Apollos]. (47)



While some people may choose to interpret 1 Corinthians 1:12 differently than it's interpreted above, what matters here is how First Clement interprets the passage. To begin with, notice that First Clement shows no signs of viewing Peter as being above the other apostles. Peter is referred to only as one of the apostles, not as a Pope. Even more important, though, is First Clement's explanation of the sin the Corinthians had been guilty of in 1 Corinthians 1:12. According to First Clement, they were guilty of showing partiality toward apostles and Apollos, an associate of the apostles. Peter (Cephas) is actually named in this passage. Obviously, the papacy is all about showing partiality toward one of the apostles. First Clement accuses the Corinthians of sinning by showing partiality among the apostles, a practice that the Roman Catholic Church actually encourages today. It can be said that, in this sense, the Roman Catholic Church is founded upon the sin of the Corinthians. Here we have a letter that allegedly was written by one of the earliest Popes, and it accuses the Corinthians of sinning by showing partiality among the apostles, including Peter. Combining this denial of Petrine supremacy with the other contradictions of Roman Catholic doctrine in First Clement, this letter actually hurts the case for an early papacy rather than helping it. The only aspect of this letter that can be cited as support of a papacy is that it's a letter of advice from the Roman church. Since such letters of advice were common, though (Ignatius' letter to Polycarp, Polycarp's letter to the Philippians, etc.), and this letter actually contradicts Roman Catholic doctrine in some ways, it can't rationally be viewed as evidence of an early papacy.

Ignatius, whose writings are the earliest to advocate the monarchical episcopate (one bishop ruling over each church), also poses problems for Roman Catholic claims about the papacy. Though Ignatius' advocacy of the monarchical episcopate was one of the important steps toward the Roman Catholic form of church government that would eventually develop, his view of church government is actually much closer to evangelicalism than Roman Catholicism. Ignatius viewed the bishop of each church as the highest church office. He has no concept of a papal office that's above the office of the bishop of the local church. On more than one occasion, Ignatius refers to Christ Himself as the Bishop who is above the local bishop:



Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love will also regard it. (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans, 9)



to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnaeans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ (The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp)



Catholic apologists often refer to Ignatius' letter to the Romans as evidence of a papacy, since Ignatius commends the Roman church for virtues such as love and generosity, he refers to the Roman church teaching other churches, and he pleads with the Roman church not to interfere with his martyrdom. All of these things may seem to be evidence of a papacy, especially when quoted out of context. However, the context of these comments, as well as other comments that are made in the letter, reveal that Ignatius had no concept of a papacy.

Apparently, Ignatius wrote this letter to the Roman church, as well as letters to other churches, while he was on his way to Rome to be martyred. The reason why he would plead that the Roman church not interfere with his martyrdom is because it was in Rome that he was going to be martyred, and the martyrdom could be appealed under the law. Ignatius wanted to be martyred. He didn't want anybody to interfere with his martyrdom. Obviously, papal authority would have nothing to do with the Roman church interfering with Ignatius' martyrdom, since the Roman Empire wouldn't recognize any such authority. In other words, Ignatius could have pleaded this way with any church, not just the Roman church, but it was Rome where he was going to be martyred. If he was going to be martyred in Ephesus, he could have pleaded with the Ephesian church not to interfere with his martyrdom.

But why does Ignatius refer to the Roman church teaching other churches? Again, the context is crucial. He's commending the Roman church for virtues such as love and generosity, and he says that the Roman church teaches other churches in that context. As we know from Paul's epistle to the Romans, the Roman church could be taught on everything from doctrinal issues to morality. That's just what Paul did in his epistle. Paul's letter to the Romans is one of the many early evidences against a papacy, since it was written at a time when Peter allegedly was several years into his papacy. Why would Paul write a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church if the Roman church was being led at the time by Peter, and all Christians had to submit to that church? The Catholic Church claims that the Roman church had jurisdictional primacy all along (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapter 2; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 834). Paul mentions many people in his letter to the Romans (Romans 1, Romans 16), but he never mentions Peter, nor does he say anything about Petrine or Roman supremacy. Obviously, Ignatius isn't saying that the Roman church can't under any circumstances be taught by other churches. Ignatius himself gives some instruction to the Roman church:



The prince of this world would fain carry me away, and corrupt my disposition towards God. Let none of you, therefore, who are in Rome help him; rather be ye on my side, that is, on the side of God. Do not speak of Jesus Christ, and yet set your desires on the world. Let not envy find a dwelling-place among you; nor even should I, when present with you, exhort you to it, be ye persuaded to listen to me, but rather give credit to those things which I now write to you. (7)



Ignatius obviously didn't believe that the Roman church "taught others" in a sense of papal supremacy. All that Ignatius is saying is that the Roman church is an example to other churches because of virtues such as love and generosity. After hundreds of years of Crusades, the Inquisition, papal wars, and the like, the Roman church has long since lost any "primacy of love" it may have once had.

Although much of Ignatius' letter to the Romans can be quoted out of context as alleged evidence of a papacy, some portions of this letter are possibly contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. Ignatius opens the letter by referring to the Roman church, which "presides in the place of the report of the Romans". It must be remembered that "presides" is not the same as "resides". Ignatius is not referring to the location of the Roman church. He's referring to the jurisdiction of the Roman church, and that jurisdiction is regional, not worldwide. Later on in the letter, as quoted earlier, Ignatius refers to his own church having Christ alone as its Bishop, since he was leaving it to be martyred. Ignatius seems to have no concept of the Roman church having worldwide jurisdiction, nor does he seem to have any concept of the bishop of Rome being the bishop of his (Ignatius') church in Antioch. To Ignatius, the Roman church had only regional authority, and could only offer love and prayers to his church in Antioch, not any papal oversight.

It seems that there wasn't even a monarchical bishop in Rome at the time Ignatius wrote this letter. First Clement, which was written by the Roman church near the end of the first century, approvingly refers to multiple bishops in Corinth. Apparently, when Ignatius wrote his letter to the Romans about 10 to 15 years later, there still wasn't a monarchical episcopate in Rome. Though Ignatius mentions bishops and matters of church government over and over again in his letters to other churches, he never mentions a Roman bishop in his letter to the Romans. Most likely, the Roman church was still being led by multiple bishops when Ignatius wrote to it.

As with First Clement, Ignatius' letter to the Romans can be portrayed as evidence of a papacy only when quoted out of context. When the letter is taken as a whole, it actually hurts the case for an early papacy rather than helping it. It can't be denied that Ignatius discussed issues of church government often in his letters, yet he never mentioned a papacy.

Near the end of the second century, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, wrote a letter to Victor, bishop of Rome, which is one of the most conclusive denials of a papacy in all of early church history. The letter is important because it not only shows Irenaeus denying the concept of a papacy, but also reveals that many Eastern churches during the second century, as well as the church father Polycarp, also didn't believe in a papacy. James White explains:



Just now I cited Lightfoot, who mentioned in passing the next incident used by Roman apologists to support their position, that being the action on the part of Victor, bishop of Rome, in threatening the Eastern Churches with excommunication if they did not bow to the Western method of determining the date of the celebration of Easter, the famed Quartodeciman controversy. Here we find the Eastern churches claiming that their method of determining the date of the celebration of Easter was Apostolic in origin. They refused to abandon this methodology, even when Victor, the bishop of Rome (the monarchial episcopate having finally emerged at Rome), threatened them with excommunication, a fact that in and of itself shows that the Eastern Churches did not view Victor as the head of the Church. But beyond this, we find Irenaeus, the great bishop of Lyons, writing to Victor, in the name of the entire region of Gaul, rebuking the rash actions of the Roman bishop, and calling him to remembrance of what had been done by his predecessors. We read:

[mustbenothing]

For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the
observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been
always [so] observed by John the disciples of our Lord, and by
other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the
other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep
[the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound
to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in
this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and
Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of
the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted
in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole
Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who
did not. [ANF I:569]

One has well pointed out that if the tables had been turned, and it was Irenaeus who had rashly threatened the Eastern churches with excommunication, and Victor had written to him rebuking him and counseling him to peace, that Victor's letter would surely be touted today as evidence of Papal supremacy at this early date. Instead, we only find the bishop of Rome trying to force the Eastern bishops to toe the line on an issue on which, in fact, Victor was in the majority. Yet not only do we not find the Eastern churches complying, but we find the Western bishop Irenaeus, and those bishops with him, writing to Victor, counseling him to back off of his impetuous course of action. I note in passing that Victor failed in his attempt; the Eastern churches continued their means of worship for years to come. (taken from an unpublished electronic file)



We see, then, that Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, along with many churches in the East, saw themselves as under no obligation to obey the bishop of Rome. And a few decades later, when Victor was bishop of Rome, we see Eastern churches still not complying with the Roman church. Irenaeus and other Western bishops seem to think that the Eastern churches have a right to do this.

Catholic apologists often try to salvage a papacy from this wreck by claiming that Irenaeus was admitting to papal authority by directing his letter to the bishop of Rome, as though that reveals that Irenaeus viewed Victor as the authority figure who could settle this dispute. Eusebius tells us in his church history, though, that Irenaeus and the Western bishops wrote to other churches as well. They didn't write only to the Roman church.

And there are some other aspects to this incident that James White doesn't mention in the quote above. Before the portion of Irenaeus' letter that White quotes, Irenaeus writes:



And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other with regard to the matter in hand, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. (Fragments, 3)



Not only could Anicetus, the bishop of Rome at the time, not convince Polycarp to change his stance on this particular issue, but Polycarp disagreed with the Roman bishop on other issues as well. How can this be, if the Roman bishop was viewed as the Vicar of Christ on earth, who had to be obeyed upon threat of loss of salvation, as the First Vatican Council claimed? Although Polycarp and the bishop of Rome at the time (Anicetus) disagreed peacefully, the truth remains that they disagreed. Even when the Roman bishop tried to persuade Polycarp to change his stance, he didn't. Polycarp doesn't seem to have viewed the bishop of Rome as the standard of orthodoxy, nor does Irenaeus give us any indication that Polycarp disagreed with the Roman bishop on these issues only because the Roman bishop allowed it. Catholic apologists often try to dismiss the church fathers' disagreements with Catholic teaching by arguing that the Catholic Church allowed disagreements at the time. But such an assertion is an assumption without evidence. Where is the evidence that people like Polycarp, Polycrates, and Cyprian disagreed with the bishops of Rome only because they were given permission to do so? Not only is there no such evidence, but we even have evidence of people denying that the Roman bishops had such authority.

Some comments Irenaeus makes earlier in his letter to Victor are even further at odds with Catholic claims about church history. Notice what Irenaeus writes, and consider the implications:



And the presbyters preceding Soter in the government of the Church which thou dost now rule - I mean, Anicetus and Pius, Hyginus and Telesphorus, and Sixtus - did neither themselves observe it after that fashion, nor permit those with them to do so. Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep the feast in this way were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was so observed (Fragments, 3)



To begin with, notice that these earlier Roman bishops are referred to by Irenaeus as "presbyters", which suggests that the distinction between presbyters and bishops wasn't yet complete. And as the quote above demonstrates, the Roman bishops (presbyters) only had authority to enforce their views on "those with them", which didn't include churches in other dioceses. It would be difficult to imagine a plainer denial of Roman and papal supremacy. And don't forget that this doesn't just involve Irenaeus. This also encompasses Polycarp, some Eastern churches of the middle of the second century, and some Western and Eastern churches of the late second century. All of these people apparently had no concept of papal and Roman supremacy, but instead denied it.

Perhaps a Catholic will argue that these Roman bishops could have commanded people in other dioceses to obey them, but they chose not to. But if these Roman bishops didn't want to impose on other dioceses, why did they impose on anybody? Irenaeus' phrase "nor permit those with them to do so" suggests that these Roman bishops were willing to impose their views on everybody they could. They didn't have the authority to do so in every church, so they did so only locally. When Victor tried to get other churches to go along with him, and he even threatened to break off fellowship with those who wouldn't cooperate, he failed. The Catholic historian Klaus Schatz writes the following about this dispute and a similar one that occurred in the next century:



Rome did not succeed in maintaining its position against the contrary opinion and praxis of a significant portion of the Church. The two most important controversies of this type were the disputes over the feast of Easter and heretical baptism. Each marks a stage in Rome’s sense of authority and at the same time reveals the initial resistance of other churches to the Roman claim. (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 11)



As devastating as the letter from Irenaeus to Victor is to the claims of Roman Catholicism, Irenaeus remains one of the most often quoted church fathers when Catholic apologists are arguing for an early papacy. Why is this?

In the third book of his treatise Against Heresies, Irenaeus refers to the Roman church being doctrinally pure, along with the churches in Ephesus and Smyrna, and he comments that all churches must agree with the Roman church for various reasons. The reasons include the Roman church's apostolic origin and its location in the capital of the empire. Not once does Irenaeus suggest that the Roman church has authority because of a papacy or because of Divine appointment. He appeals to Rome for practical reasons. He also contradicts Catholic claims about church history by saying that Linus was appointed as bishop of Rome by the apostles (plural) while Peter was still alive. In listing a succession of Roman bishops, as Irenaeus was doing, it would obviously be important to mention that Peter was the first bishop of Rome, if he actually was. Yet, not only does Irenaeus not say that, but his comments about Linus being the bishop of Rome while Peter was still alive amount to a denial that Peter was bishop of Rome until his death. According to later tradition, Peter served as bishop of Rome from 42 A.D. to 67 A.D., when he died as a martyr. Not only does Irenaeus have no concept of Peter being a bishop of Rome, but other early sources also have no such concept. The idea that Peter had been a bishop of Rome became popular in the fourth century, and was added to later copies of Eusebius' church history, but the earliest evidence doesn't support this later claim. As the New Testament, The Didache, and First Clement demonstrate, there wouldn't even have been a monarchical episcopate for Peter to hold in Rome. The monarchical episcopate doesn't seem to have developed in Rome until well into the second century.

This passage of Irenaeus in Against Heresies, which Catholics often quote, is interpreted in numerous ways by scholars. There are difficulties in translating the text (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01- 61.htm#P7966_2192965). And even the translations most favored by Catholic apologists say nothing about a papacy. Catholic historian Robert Eno comments:



The context of Irenaeus' argument does not claim that the Roman Church is literally unique, the only one of its class; rather, he argues that the Roman Church is the outstanding example of its class, the class in question being apostolic sees. While he chose to speak primarily of Rome for brevity's sake, in fact, before finishing, he also referred to Ephesus and Smyrna. (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 39)



Catholic scholar William La Due writes:



It is inDouche understandable how this passage has baffled scholars for centuries! Those who were wont to find in it a verification of the Roman primacy were able to interpret it in that fashion. However, there is so much ambiguity here that one has to be careful of over-reading the evidence....

Karl Baus' interpretation [that Irenaeus was not referring to a papacy] seems to be the one that is more faithful to the text and does not presume to read into it a meaning which might not be there. Hence, it neither overstates nor understates Irenaeus' position. For him [Irenaeus], it is those churches of apostolic foundation that have the greater claim to authentic teaching and doctrine. Among those, Rome, with its two apostolic founders, certainly holds an important place. However, all of the apostolic churches enjoy what he terms "preeminent authority" in doctrinal matters. (The Chair of Saint Peter [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 28)



While Irenaeus does say in his Against Heresies that all churches must agree with the Roman church for various practical reasons, he obviously didn't believe in a papacy, and he didn't even believe in an absolute Roman supremacy. As his letter to Victor proves, Irenaeus believed that the Roman church could err, and that it didn't always have to be followed by other churches. There's a difference between appealing to the Roman church as the best example of pure apostolic doctrine in a work intended to refute Gnosticism (Against Heresies) and believing that the bishop of Rome is the ruler of every Christian on earth throughout history. Irenaeus' comments about the Roman church in Against Heresies are a snapshot, an appeal to the Roman church's doctrinal purity at that time. Only by quoting some of his comments in Against Heresies out of context can Irenaeus be portrayed as a believer in the papacy. We know why Irenaeus held a high view of the Roman church. He tells us. He gives numerous reasons. And a papacy isn't one of them.

Before moving on to another church father, I want to ask some questions about Irenaeus that we should be asking about all of these early sources. Why is it that Irenaeus wrote so much material, yet Catholics have found only one small passage to point to as alleged evidence that Irenaeus believed in the doctrine of the papacy? And why must they rely on speculative and unlikely interpretations of that passage to even find a papacy in that one place? If one man was viewed as the ruler of all Christians on earth, as an infallible standard of orthodoxy, don't you think we would find references to such an authority frequently and explicitly? Why don't we?

Not long after Irenaeus, an incident around the middle of the third century proves once again that the earliest church leaders had no concept of a papacy. During a dispute about baptism, Cyprian and dozens of other bishops met at the council of Carthage in 256 A.D., at which they said:



For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there. (proceedings of the council of Carthage)



Again, as with Irenaeus' letter to Victor, it would be hard to imagine a plainer denial of the doctrine of the papacy. These bishops at the council of Carthage obviously didn't see themselves as being governed by the Roman bishop or the Roman church. To the contrary, one of their opponents during this controversy over heretical baptism was Stephen, the bishop of Rome. Firmilian, a bishop of Cappadocia, wrote a letter to Cyprian supporting him with these words:



I am justly indignant at such open and manifest folly in Stephen...And this you of Africa may say in answer to Stephen, that on discovering the truth you abandoned the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the custom of the Romans we oppose custom (Cyprian's Epistle 74:17, 74:19)



Firmilian, Cyprian, and dozens of other bishops involved in this dispute had no concept of a papacy, but instead denied the concept. How can this be, if a papacy with universal jurisdiction had been "ever understood by the Catholic Church", as the First Vatican Council claimed (session 4, chapter 1)?

Though Peter eventually was viewed by many church fathers as the greatest of the apostles, Paul is mentioned by the earliest church fathers much more than Peter. Paul's prominent role in the New Testament era and among the earliest church fathers is undeniable. This isn't conclusive evidence that there wasn't a papacy early on, but when you add this to all of the explicit and subtle denials of Petrine supremacy in the New Testament and the earliest church father writings (Luke 22:24, John 21:21-22, 1 Corinthians 1:12, 2 Corinthians 12:11, First Clement 47, Irenaeus' letter to Victor, etc.), it adds more confirmation to the case against an early papacy.

The truth is that the apostles had equal authority. From the third century onward, it was popular to refer to Peter as the greatest of the apostles, although not all church fathers from the third century onward held that view. But even the third century church fathers who did believe in some sort of Petrine supremacy saw Peter's supremacy as symbolic rather than governmental (Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, etc.). Origen saw Peter as representative of all Christians, who became "rocks" when they confessed Christ's Divinity just as Peter did in Matthew 16:16. Cyprian saw Peter as representative of all bishops. He specifically said that this did not make Peter superior to the other apostles in power or rank. Many other church fathers held similar views.

What does it tell us when the New Testament and the earliest church fathers either didn't mention or actually denied Petrine supremacy? And what does it tell us when the views of Petrine supremacy that did eventually develop began by viewing Peter as supreme in a non-jurisdictional way? It tells us that the papacy developed over time, as a tradition of men (Matthew 15:9, Colossians 2:8), rather than being founded by Christ and the apostles.

To illustrate how easily the New Testament and church father writings can be misrepresented in order to create the impression that there was an early papacy, I present the following case for Paul being the first Pope. I'll use the same sorts of arguments Catholics use to argue for a Petrine papacy.

In Acts 9:15, Christ Himself calls Paul "a chosen vessel", and mentions his special role in bearing Christ's name before the world, both Jews and Gentiles. Doesn't bearing Christ's name before the world sound like something a Pope would do? No other apostle is called "chosen vessel". This is unique to Paul. Catholic apologists argue that since Matthew 16:18 might be referring to Peter as "this rock", and the passage is said in response only to Peter, then this passage is evidence that Peter was the first Pope. I would argue, then, that since Acts 9:15 refers to Paul as "chosen vessel", and this title isn't applied to any other apostle, then this passage is evidence that Paul was the first Pope. If Catholic apologists can quote Matthew 16:18, and expect the case to be settled there, then I, too, could rest my case with Acts 9:15. But there's more!

Paul writes much more of the New Testament than any other apostle. In the book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, Paul is the one who receives the most attention. Paul exercises authority over Peter (Galatians 2:11), as well as the Roman church (epistle to the Romans). By Catholic standards, this should be enough to prove that Paul was a Pope, but let's go even further.

Paul writes:

"Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk. And thus I direct in all the churches." - 1 Corinthians 7:17

"Apart from such external things, there is the daily pressure upon me of concern for all the churches." - 2 Corinthians 11:28

What other evidence do you need? Paul refers to his authority over all the churches, something no other apostle does. We can see Paul's primacy in other comments that are made by or about him:

"according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men" - Romans 2:16

"I do not write these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. For if you were to have countless tutors in Christ, yet you would not have many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel. I exhort you therefore, be imitators of me." - 1 Corinthians 4:14-16

"What do you desire? Shall I come to you with a rod or with love and a spirit of gentleness?" - 1 Corinthians 4:21

"If anyone thinks he is a prophet or spiritual, let him recognize that the things which I write to you are the Lord's commandment. But if anyone does not recognize this, he is not recognized." - 1 Corinthians 14:37-38

"our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, wrote to you, as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures" - 2 Peter 3:15-16

We see in these passages that the gospel is "Paul's gospel", something that is never said of any other apostle. Paul is the "father" of the Corinthians, which is evidence that he was the Pope. Paul threatens to come to the Corinthians "with a rod", he calls his own writings "the Lord's commandment", and he says that those who don't recognize him are not themselves to be recognized. Obviously, Paul is a Pope exercising papal authority!

Peter had to subject himself to his Pope's rebuke in Galatians 2:11. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter had to admit that even he found his Pope's epistles to be hard to understand at times. Obviously, Peter knew that his Pope's wisdom was greater than his own. We, like Peter, should submit to the authority of the Pope.

And where does the Pope reside? In Ephesus, of course! We read in Acts 20:

"And from Miletus he [Paul] sent to Ephesus and called to him the elders of the church....Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood." - Acts 20:17, 20:28

Here we see Pope Paul instructing the leaders of the Ephesian church, as his successors, to shepherd the entire church of God. Unlike other leaders, who would only have jurisdiction over individual local churches, the Ephesian successors of Paul would have jurisdiction over the entire "church of God which He purchased with His own blood". This proves that the bishops of Ephesus are to have universal jurisdiction. Here we once again see evidence of the Pauline papacy, carried on through a succession of Ephesian bishops.

This papacy is confirmed by the earliest church fathers. They mention Paul much more than Peter or any other apostle, and their comments about Paul are more exalted than their comments about the other apostles. Ignatius writes in the introduction of his letter to the Ephesian church:



to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fulness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory



As Ignatius explains, the Ephesian church is "deservedly most happy". This is because of its primacy. Ephesus has the "greatness and fulness of God the Father", meaning that it couldn't possibly be any more perfect than it already is. The Ephesian church is the reservoir of sound doctrine. That the Ephesian church is "always for an enduring and unchangeable glory" is confirmation that the traditions of the Ephesian church are to be the Christian's rule of faith throughout history. If there ever are any disputes over scripture interpretation, doctrine, church government, etc., Christians are to turn to the "enduring and unchangeable glory" in Ephesus to find the answers.

Ignatius goes on to say:



As to my fellow-servant Burrhus, your deacon in regard to God and blessed in all things, I beg that he may continue longer, both for your honour and that of your bishop. (2)



Notice that a deacon of the Ephesian church is viewed as Ignatius' "fellow-servant", even though Ignatius is a bishop, an office higher than the office of deacon. Why is this? Because the Ephesian bishop is not Ignatius' equal! He's a superior. He's the Pope. This is why Ignatius must "beg" the Ephesian church to allow this deacon to stay with him longer. And Ignatius assures the Ephesian church that he's making this request for the honor of their bishop, the Pope. Surely Ignatius was acknowledging the Ephesian church's primacy and the supremacy of its bishop.

Ignatius also writes:



I do not issue orders to you, as if I were some great person. (3)



Ignatius knows that he can't issue orders to the Ephesian church. All he can do is follow and obey. We would be wise to learn from his example by submitting to the supremacy of the Ephesian church and the bishop of Ephesus.

Polycarp also acknowledges the supremacy of Pope Paul:



For neither I, nor any other such one, can come up to the wisdom of the blessed and glorified Paul. (The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians, 3)



We see, then, that the New Testament and the earliest church fathers teach a Pauline papacy, with the bishops of Ephesus being the successors of Paul. And this evidence is even more conclusive than the early evidence Catholic apologists can cite for a Petrine papacy.

Obviously, Paul wasn't really a Pope. And the Ephesian church didn't really have a primacy or any successors of the apostle Paul in the sense of people who had just as much authority as Paul had. What I've done is illustrate just how easy it is to abuse the New Testament and the writings of the earliest church fathers in order to see in their writings a doctrine that those people never really believed in. Though my case for a Pauline papacy obviously isn't credible when all of the evidence is taken into consideration, it's actually much stronger than the case for a Petrine papacy. Paul does refer to himself watching over all the churches, for example, something that Peter never did (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28). However, it's obvious that we can't assume that Paul was a Pope just because of statements like those. If there had really been a papacy in the early church, we wouldn't have to read between the lines to find it. The New Testament deals with issues of church government over and over again, including repeated mentions of the offices of bishop (also known as elder, presbyter, and overseer) and deacon. A papal office is never mentioned or even alluded to. To the contrary, Christ and the apostles denied the concept that Peter had been established as the ruler of the apostles (Luke 9:46, 22:24, John 21:21-22, 2 Corinthians 12:11). If one man and his successors had been established as the rulers of all Christians on earth, his office would be mentioned overtly in the New Testament. It would also be mentioned overtly in early documents outside of the New Testament. It wouldn't be the sort of thing that would go for centuries without ever being explicitly mentioned by anybody. Yet, that's just what we see with the papacy.

Over the centuries, the Roman church grew in reputation and influence, eventually being accepted in the West as a sort of mother church. It's undeniable that this authority wasn't established by Christ and the apostles, but rather developed over time. Many people, including church fathers like Cyprian and Augustine, parted ways with the Roman church when they disagreed with it. The sort of absolute and unquestionable authority the Roman Catholic Church has claimed to have in recent centuries wasn't known to the earliest Christians.

If the events of history had come down differently than they did, with Ephesus gaining prominence rather than Rome, we might have seen people today bringing up the arguments I used for a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy. In other words, what Roman Catholics are doing today is reading a papacy back into the New Testament, even though the New Testament doesn't really establish any such office. After the institution of the papacy developed in Rome, followers of the Roman church began reading the institution back into the writings of the apostles and other earlier Christian writers, as though the institution had existed all along.

If there was no papacy in the early church, then how can the Roman Catholic Church have the authority it claims to have today? Consider the warning of the apostle Paul:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ." - Colossians 2:8







"There is all the difference in the world between the attitude of Rome towards other churches at the close of the first century, when the Romans as a community remonstrate on terms of equality with the Corinthians on their irregularities, strong only in the righteousness of their cause, and feeling as they had a right to feel, that these counsels of peace were the dictation of the Holy Spirit, and its attitude at the close of the second century, when Victor the bishop excommunicates the Churches of Asia Minor for clinging to a usage in regard to the celebration of Easter which had been handed down to them from the Apostles, and thus foments instead of healing dissensions....Even this second stage has carried the power of Rome only a very small step in advance towards the assumptions of a Hildebrand or an Innocent or a Boniface, or even of a Leo: but it is nevertheless a decided step. The substitution of the bishop of Rome for the Church of Rome is an all important point. The later Roman theory supposes that the Church of Rome derives all its authority from the bishop of Rome, as the successor of S. Peter. History inverts this relation and shows that, as a matter of fact, the power of the bishop of Rome was built upon the power of the Church of Rome...this then was the original primacy of Rome - a primacy not of the bishop but of the whole church, a primacy not of official authority but of practical goodness, backed however by the prestige and the advantages which were necessarily enjoyed by the church of the metropolis" - J.B. Lightfoot (cited at http://www.aomin.org/1296CATR.html)




"An overseer [bishop, elder, presbyter], then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity...he must have a good reputation with those outside the church" - 1 Timothy 3:2-4, 3:7







Part of the Roman Catholic Church's claim to authority is the assumption that all of its Popes have been legitimate bishops. Anybody familiar with the history of the papacy, however, knows that dozens of Popes have failed to meet the requirements for a bishop described in 1 Timothy 3. It isn't just a matter of some Popes becoming fornicators, bribers, or murderers after becoming Pope, but rather some Popes attained the papacy by means of committing such sins. Others, while they may not have attained the office by means of those sins, were known to be fornicators, rapists, murderers, etc. when they were appointed Pope. If the Catholic Church allows men to attain the papacy by means of bribery or murder, and it appoints men as Pope who are known to be fornicators or thieves, how can anybody conclude that the Catholic Church has an unbroken succession of legitimate bishops by the standards of 1 Timothy 3?

While some Catholic apologists suggest that 1 Timothy 3 is only an ideal, one that's impossible to meet and can be ignored, nothing in the text or context of the passage suggests that Paul shared that view. Obviously, Paul wasn't saying that church leaders must be perfect, but he was saying that they must meet high moral standards. The church father Polycarp, when writing to the Philippian church about one of their presbyters who had been caught in immorality, didn't seem to view 1 Timothy 3 as an impossible ideal:



I am greatly grieved for Valens, who was once a presbyter among you, because he so little understands the place that was given him in the church. I exhort you, therefore, that ye abstain from covetousness, and that ye be chaste and truthful. "Abstain from every form of evil." For if a man cannot govern himself in such matters, how shall he enjoin them on others? (11)



While the Roman Catholic Church sometimes removes people from church offices for immorality, it's been inconsistent in doing so. That inconsistency has been worse in its highest office, the papacy, than anywhere else.

Some Catholics argue that the immorality of Popes is a thing of the past. That objection fails for two reasons, however.

Even if only Popes of the past were immoral, and modern Popes had not been, the Catholic Church's claim to authority today rests upon the legitimacy of those past Popes. One missing link would prevent the Catholic Church from being able to claim an unbroken succession from the apostles.

And have recent Popes actually met the requirements of 1 Timothy 3? By teaching so much false doctrine, and by supporting annulments and making corrupt alliances with world governments, for example, haven't recent Popes also fallen far short of the standards set forth by the apostle Paul?

While Catholics may object to the charge that recent Popes have failed to meet the requirements of 1 Timothy 3, they can't object to that charge being made against dozens of Roman bishops and Popes of previous centuries. Some excerpts from a recent book by the Roman Catholic author Eamon Duffy illustrate this. As you read the following, ask yourself whether the Catholic Church can claim an unbroken succession of legitimate bishops by the standards of 1 Timothy 3. And ask yourself whether Jesus and the apostles ever taught this sort of "apostolic succession". When men become bishops by means of bribery or murder, or they're appointed by prostitutes or political leaders, do they have apostolic authority just because they claim a lineage from the apostles? What about when numerous people claim that lineage at once, and the people claiming the lineage teach error and contradict one another? Duffy writes in Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1997):



By contrast [to an earlier Roman bishop who had been martyred], in the later persecution under Diocletian in 303, Pope Marcellinus (296-304?) would cave in to pressure. He surrendered copies of the scriptures and offered sacrifice to the gods. He died a year later in disgrace, and the Roman church set about forgetting him....

In the misery of exile, surrounded by imperial clergy and far from home, Liberius [bishop of Rome] weakened. He agreed to the excommunication of Athanasius [a bishop who defended the deity of Christ], and signed a formula which, while it did not actually repudiate the Nicene Creed, weakened it with the meaningless claim that the Logos [Jesus Christ] was 'like the father in being' and in all things. In 358 he was finally allowed to return to Rome.

He found the city deeply divided. On Liberius' exile in 355, the Emperor had installed a new pope, Liberius' former archdeacon Felix. Consecrated by Arian bishops in the imperial palace in Milan, Felix was an obvious fellow traveller, but imperial patronage was a powerful persuader, and many of the Roman clergy had rallied to him. Constantius was now unwilling simply to repudiate Felix, and commanded that Liberius and he should function as joint bishops....

Liberius' successor Damasus (366-84), who had served as deacon under both Liberius and Felix, would inherit some of the consequences of his predecessor's exile. His election in 366 was contested, and he was confronted by a rival pope, Ursinus, whom he only got rid of with the help of the city police and a murderous rabble....

Deprived of the support of empire, the papacy became the possession of the great Roman families, a ticket to local dominance for which men were prepared to rape, murder and steal. A third of the popes elected between 872 and 1012 died in suspicious circumstances - John VIII (872-82) bludgeoned to death by his own entourage, Stephen VI (896-7) strangled, Leo V (903) murdered by his successor Sergius III (904-11), John X (914-28) suffocated, Stephen VIII (939-42) horribly mutilated, a fate shared by the Greek antipope John XVI (997-8) who, unfortunately for him, did not die from the removal of his eyes, nose, lips, tongue and hands. Most of these men were manoeuvred into power by a succession of powerful families - the Theophylacts, the Crescentii, the Tusculani. John X, one of the few popes of this period to make a stand against aristocratic domination, was deposed and then murdered in the Castel Sant' Angelo by the Theophylacts, who had appointed him in the first place.

The key figure in both John X's appointment and his deposition was the notorious Theophylact matron, Marozia. She also appointed Leo VI (928) and Stephen VII (928-31), and she had been the mistress of Pope Sergius III, by whom she bore an illegitimate son whom she eventually appointed as Pope John XI (931-6)....

Its [the declining papacy's] symbol is the macabre 'cadaver synod' staged by Stephen VI in January 897, when he put on trial the mummified corpse of his hated predecessor but one, Pope Formosus. The corpse, dressed in pontifical vestments and propped up on a throne, was found guilty of perjury and other crimes, was mutilated by having the fingers used in blessings hacked off, and was then tossed into the Tiber. Stephen himself was subsequently deposed by the disgusted Roman crowd, and strangled in prison....

Of the twenty-five popes between 955 and 1057, thirteen were appointed by the local aristocracy, while the other twelve were appointed (and no fewer than five dismissed) by the German emperors. The ancient axiom that no one may judge the Pope was still in the law-books, but in practice had long since been set aside.

The popes themselves were deeply embroiled in the internecine dynastic warfare of the Roman nobility, and election to the chair of Peter, as we have seen, was frequently a commodity for sale or barter. The Ottonian era had led to a temporary improvement in the characters of the popes, but by the second quarter of the eleventh century standards had crumbled once more. Benedict IX (1032-48), whose election was the result of a systematic campaign of bribery by his father, the Tusculan grandee Count Alberic III, was as bad as any of the popes of the preceding 'dark century'. Like his uncle and immediate predecessor John XIX, Benedict was a layman, and was still in his twenties at the time of his election. He was both violent and debauched, and even the Roman populace, hardened as they were to unedifying papal behaviour, could not stomach him. He was eventually deposed in favour of Silvester III (1045). With the help of his family's private army, he was briefly restored in 1045 amid bloody hand-to-hand fighting in the streets of Rome. He was evidently tired of the struggle, however, for he accepted a bribe to abdicate in favour of his godfather, the archpriest John Gratian....

The spread of nepotism and of venal appointments to the cardinalate, in return for money or favours, made the outcome of elections towards the end of the century even less likely to reflect a simple search for 'God's candidate'. In the 1484 conclave which elected Innocent VIII (1484-92) there were a record twenty-five cardinals present, many of them scandalously secular men. Proceedings were stage-managed by Giuliano della Rovere, nephew of the dead Pope. When it became clear that he himself was unelectable, he saw to it that a manageable nonentity was chosen. The successful candidate, Cardinal Cibo, bribed electors by countersigning petitions for promotion brought to him in his cell the night before the decisive vote.

Roderigo Borgia's election as Alexander VI in 1492 was accompanied by even more naked bribery....Yet, for all his ability, Roderigo was a worldly and ruthless man, and at the time of his election was already the father of eight children, by at least three women....

Before the Great Schism, the papacy had derived much of its funding from the vigorous exercise of its spiritual office - payments from suppliants at the papal court, revenues derived from papal provisions, annates on benefices, Peter's Pence. The erosion of papal prerogatives during the schism and Conciliar era, however, drastically reduced such payments, and the papacy was increasingly thrown back on the secular revenues derived from the Papal States - a fact which accounts for the papal wars in defence of those States....

Nevertheless, the mounting cost of papal wars, and the lavish building programmes of successive popes, made the search for new sources of revenue unending. The most notorious of these was the sale of indulgences, especially the indulgence for the rebuilding of St Peter's. More significant still, however, was the growing dependence of the popes on the sale of office....

In the same year in which Erasmus published Julius Exclusus, in which the Lateran Council ended, and in which Pope Leo packed the College of Cardinals with thirty-one new creations, an unknown theology professor in Wittenberg, an obscure new German university, proposed an academic debate on the subject of indulgences. His name was Martin Luther, and he was reacting against the indulgence which Pope Julius and after him Pope Leo had issued to help fund the rebuilding of St Peter's. Raising donations for Church projects by dispensing spiritual blessings was a long-established practice, and few people questioned it....

Devout minds everywhere were revolted by this sort of stuff [Johann Tetzel's means of selling indulgences], and there had been many protests before about such abuse of indulgences. But Luther was not protesting about the abuse of indulgences: he was protesting about indulgences themselves. Luther was a pious and scrupulous monk, who had recently passed through a profound spiritual crisis. Overwhelmed by a sense of his own sinfulness, he had found the idea of God's justice terrifying, and the Church's remedies through confession and acts of penance powerless to calm his fears. Release had come from a phrase in St Paul: 'The righteous shall live by faith.' For Luther, this one phrase turned the whole medieval system of salvation on its head. The saint was not, as the Church taught, a man or woman who no longer sinned: the saint was a sinner who put all his or her trust in God. Good works, penance, indulgences, contributed nothing to salvation. Faith, a childlike dependence on God, was everything. There was a place for good works in the Christian life, but as a thankful response for salvation achieved, not as a means of earning it. (pp. 14, 25, 82-83, 87, 149, 153-154)







"So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness; and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy...And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus...The seven heads [of the beast] are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth....And the woman which thou sawest was that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth [Rome]....Come out of her, My people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities...for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her." - Revelation 17:3, 17:6, 17:9, 17:18, 18:4-5, 18:8




"It is abundantly clear by reading the Catholic apologists that they will not accept any evidence that overturns papal infallibility. No matter how badly a Pope has erred - morally, doctrinally, or otherwise - no charge against papal infallibility will ever stick. It would save us a lot of time if Catholic apologists will simply admit this. In reality, this is nothing short of historical gymnastics and wishful reconstructions at best - and blatant dishonesty at worst." - Eric Svendsen, Evangelical Answers (Atlanta, Georgia: New Testament Restoration Foundation, 1997), p. 34



There are a lot of disagreements about when Popes are infallible and when they aren't. The First Vatican Council and other recent Catholic sources that have claimed infallibility for the Pope have been interpreted in different ways by different people. Catholics don't agree with each other about papal infallibility, and non-Catholics also disagree over how to interpret the doctrine. Since Popes have often erred, some Catholic apologists have claimed that papal infallibility has only been exercised twice: the Immaculate Conception decree of Pope Pius IX in 1854 and the Assumption of Mary decree of Pope Pius XII in 1950. However, even those decrees have errors in them. For example, in the Immaculate Conception decree, Pope Pius IX referred to Mary as the crusher of Satan's head in Genesis 3:15. That interpretation was derived from a mistranslation of the passage that was part of Catholic Bibles for centuries. The crusher of Satan's head in Genesis 3:15 is actually masculine, not feminine. There's no reason to believe that Mary is the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15, contrary to what Pope Pius IX wrote in the Immaculate Conception decree. Because of such errors, some Catholics claim that not even the Immaculate Conception and Assumption of Mary decrees are infallible. Only some parts of those decrees are exercises of papal infallibility. Other Catholics argue that Popes have exercised papal infallibility more often. However the doctrine is defined, there's no evidence that Popes have any power of infallibility, and the Catholic Church's failure to further define the doctrine reflects that. The Catholic Church has been vague on this issue for obvious reasons.

While the Catholic Church tries to avoid responsibility for papal errors by defining papal infallibility in a vague way, it demands obedience to the Pope at all times, as though every word coming from his mouth is infallible. The Catholic Church thereby avoids responsibility while commanding obedience. It can err repeatedly, yet still claim infallibility, and demand obedience at all times, even when it's erring. For example, the Second Vatican Council taught ("Dogmatic Constitution on the Church", no. 25, emphasis mine):



This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, inDouche, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and that one sincerely adhere to decisions made by him.



Nobody knows just when the Pope supposedly is speaking infallibly and when he isn't, and he's to be obeyed even when he isn't speaking infallibly. This reasoning allows the Roman Catholic Church to derive all of the benefits of claiming infallibility, such as having hundreds of millions of people obey it, while avoiding the responsibilities of claiming infallibility.

Even the Catholic apologists who claim that papal infallibility has only been exercised twice often cite papal infallibility on other issues. They're inconsistent. To avoid the implications of papal errors such as Liberius' support of Arianism and Honorius' support of Monothelitism, Catholics will argue that papal infallibility is defined so narrowly that those papal errors aren't part of that definition. However, when Catholics are discussing the canon of scripture, for example, they'll claim that a Pope such as Damasus or Innocent infallibly declared what the canon of scripture is. Or when discussing an issue such as the deity of Christ or the Trinity, they'll claim that Popes infallibly settled those matters. But if papal infallibility has only been exercised twice, how can Catholic apologists claim that the canon of scripture, Christ's deity, the Trinity, etc. have also been infallibly declared? How can they claim that some rulings of Popes and councils are infallible, while others aren't, without having a reasonable and consistent standard by which to make such a distinction? For example, if Pope Pius IX's Immaculate Conception decree is infallible, why wouldn't Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam decree, which errs repeatedly, also be infallible? Both decrees were issued by Popes, both decrees define doctrine, and both decrees use authoritative language. Or when the Fourth Lateran Council dogmatizes transubstantiation, why is that accepted as infallible, while the same council's offering of indulgences to those who participate in a Crusade and "exterminate heretics" isn't accepted as infallible? Catholics are unreasonable and inconsistent in how they define papal infallibility.

The doctrine of the papacy, even without papal infallibility, has led to a lot of false doctrine and dishonesty. Millions of people have been deceived into accepting false teaching because they believed that the Pope has apostolic authority. Popes have brought about all sorts of false doctrines, persecutions, and wars. Incalculable amounts of time and effort have been spent arguing back and forth about the papacy, papal infallibility, and related subjects. A lot of people have given their reputations, their lives, and even their souls to defending the doctrine of the papacy. As Charles Hodge wrote, regarding papal infallibility:



We know that when Christ was on earth men did not believe or obey him. We know that when the Apostles were still living, and their authority was still confirmed by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles and gifts of the Holy Ghost, the Church was distracted by heresies and schisms. If any in their sluggishness are disposed to think that a perpetual body of infallible teachers would be a blessing, all must admit that the assumption of infallibility by the ignorant, the erring, and the wicked, must be an evil inconceivably great. The Romish theory, if true, might be a blessing; if false, it must be an awful curse. (cited in Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1998], Vol. I, p. 171)



History proves that the doctrines of the papacy and papal infallibility are not blessings, but are instead awful curses. Below are two of the many examples that could be cited.



Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam



What follows below is Pope Boniface VIII's Unam Sanctam decree, issued early in the fourteenth century. I've highlighted portions that contradict what the Roman Catholic Church teaches today, as well as portions that misinterpret scripture. As you read this papal decree, ask yourself whether this Pope's scripture interpretations are accurate. Does this Pope interpret passages like John 18:11 and 1 Corinthians 2:15 correctly? Ask yourself whether this is a "Vicar of Christ" speaking "infallibly" or, instead, a fallible man perverting the gospel, misrepresenting scripture, and attempting to attain more power for himself. I'll be including numbers, in brackets ("[]"), after each portion of the decree that I highlight. At the end of the decree, I'll comment on each of the portions I highlighted.



Boniface, Bishop, Servant of the servants of God. For perpetual remembrance:

Urged on by our faith, we are obliged to believe and hold that there is one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And we firmly believe and profess that outside of her there is no salvation nor remission of sins, as the bridegroom declares in the Canticles, "My dove, my undefiled, is but one; she is the only one of her mother; she is the choice one of her that bare her." And this represents the one mystical body of Christ, and of this body Christ is the head, and God is the head of Christ. In it there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism. For in the time of the Flood there was the single ark of Noah, which prefigures the one Church, and it was finished according to the measure of one cubit and had one Noah for pilot and captain, and outside of it every living creature on the earth, as we read, was destroyed. And this Church we revere as the only, even as the Lord saith by the prophet, "Deliver my soul from the sword, my darling from the power of the dog." He prayed for his soul, that is, for himself, head and body. And this body he called one body, that is, the Church, because of the single bridegroom, the unity of the faith, the sacraments, and the love of the Church. She is that seamless shirt of the Lord which was not rent but was allotted by the casting of lots. Therefore, this one and single Church has one head and not two heads,- for had she two heads, she would be a monster,- that is, Christ and Christ's vicar, Peter and Peter's successor. For the Lord said unto Peter, "Feed my sheep." "My," he said, speaking generally and not particularly, "these and those," by which it is to be understood that all the sheep are committed unto him. So, when the Greeks [Eastern Orthodox] and others say that they were not committed to the care of Peter and his successors, they must confess that they are not of Christ's sheep [1], even as the Lord says in John, "There is one fold and one shepherd."

That in her and within her power are two swords, we are taught in the Gospels, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword. For when the Apostles said, "Lo, here,"- that is, in the Church,- are two swords, the Lord did not reply to the Apostles "it is too much," but "it is enough." [Luke 22:38] [2] It is certain that whoever denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter hearkens ill to the words of the Lord which he spake, "Put up thy sword into its sheath." [John 18:11] [3] Therefore, both are in the power of the Church, namely, the spiritual sword and the temporal sword; the latter is to be used for the Church, the former by the Church; the former by the hand of the priest, the latter by the hand of princes and kings, but at the nod and sufferance of the priest. The one sword must of necessity be subject to the other, and the temporal authority to the spiritual. For the Apostle said, "There is no power but of God, and the powers that be are ordained of God"; and they would not have been ordained unless one sword had been made subject to the other, and even as the lower is subjected to the other for higher things. For, according to Dionysius, it is a divine law that the lowest things are made by mediocre things to attain to the highest. For it is not according to the law of the universe that all things in an equal way and immediately should reach their end, but the lowest through the mediocre and the lower through their higher. But that the spiritual power excels the earthly power in dignity and worth, we will the more clearly acknowledge just in proportion as the spiritual is higher than the temporal. And this we perceive quite distinctly from the donation of the tithe and functions of benediction and sanctification, from the mode in which the power was received, and the government of the subjected realms. For truth being the witness, the spiritual power has the functions of establishing the temporal power and sitting in judgment on it if it should prove to be not good. And to the Church and the Church's power the prophecy of Jeremiah attests: "See, I have set thee this day over the nations and kingdoms to pluck up and to break down and to destroy and to overthrow, to build and to plant." [Jeremiah 1:10] [4]

And if the earthly power deviate from the right path, it is judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power deviate from the right path, the lower in rank is judged by its superior; but if the supreme power [the papacy] deviate, it can be judged not by man, but by God alone. And so the Apostle testifies, "He which is spiritual judges all things, but he himself is judged by no man." [1 Corinthians 2:15] But this authority, although it be given to a man, and though it be exercised by a man, is not a human but a divine power given by divine word of mouth to Peter and confirmed to Peter and to his successors [5] by Christ himself, whom Peter confessed, even him whom Christ called the Rock. For the Lord said to Peter himself, "Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth," etc. Whoever, therefore, resists this power so ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God, unless perchance he imagines two principles to exist, as did Manichaeus, which we pronounce false and heretical. For Moses testified that God created heaven and earth not in the beginnings but "in the beginning" [Genesis 1:1] [6].

Furthermore, that every human creature is subject to the Roman pontiff [the Pope],- this we declare, say, define, and pronounce to be altogether necessary to salvation. [7]



1. This claim contradicts the Second Vatican Council and other recent Catholic documents, which teach that people outside of the Roman Catholic Church, including Eastern Orthodox, can be saved without submitting to the Pope.

2. Luke 22:38 isn't teaching that the Roman Catholic Church has authority over governments. Passages such as John 18:36 contradict this Pope's interpretation of Luke 22:38.

3. John 18:11 isn't teaching that the Roman Catholic Church has authority over governments, and it isn't teaching that governments must use their sword at the command of the church.

4. Jeremiah 1:10 isn't about the church.

5. 1 Corinthians 2:15 is referring to all Christians, not the Pope. Verse 16 tells us that "we have the mind of Christ".

6. Genesis 1:1 doesn't prove that there has to be a Pope.

7. This claim contradicts the Second Vatican Council and other recent Catholic documents, which teach that people outside of the Roman Catholic Church can be saved without submitting to the Pope.



Pope Sixtus V, Aeternus Ille



Peter de Rosa, a Roman Catholic and former Jesuit, gives a lot of examples of Popes erring and contradicting one another in his book Vicars of Christ (New York, New York: Crown Publishers, 1988). What follows is one example, the Sixtus Bible. A Pope, Sixtus V, issued a version of the Bible that was filled with errors, and he ordered all Christians to accept and follow that erroneous Bible, which he had personally edited. Not only does this illustrate the fallibility of Popes on matters of faith and morals, but it also illustrates once again how corrupt the institution of the papacy is and how much it corrupts other people. I've added emphasis in bold:



The Pope Who Rewrote the Bible

When Gregory XIII became pope in the year 1572, the Franciscan Cardinal Montalto retired from public life. His retainers passed it around that his Eminence had one foot in the grave already and wanted no more of life than to prepare for death. At the rare meetings of the Sacred College which he was obligated to attend, he coughed continuously as if he were in the final stages of consumption. To whatever was proposed he meekly bowed his big tonsured head in assent. He was too weak to argue. When his colleagues protested that he was far too young to die, Felice Peretti da Montalto shrugged sadly and added eight years to his age in an effort to convince them of his imminent decease. An English visitor to Rome chanced to catch a rare glimpse of his Eminence bent over his fire and wrote home about this 'most crooching, humble cardinal that was ever lodged in an oven'.

Pope Gregory died in 1585. Montalto appeared at the conclave, hollow-cheeked, dull-eyed, with wrinkles carefully applied. His gait was snail-like, his voice scarcely audible. He walked on crutches, and so round-shouldered was he that his head nearly touched the ground. It was evident to all forty-two cardinal-electors as they cast their votes that Montalto was perfect for the papacy. They were immediately undeceived. As soon as Montalto won the vote, according to his biographer Leti, he straightened up, threw his crutches away with the cry, 'Now I am Caesar,' before intoning the Te Deum with a voice of thunder.

In five years, Sixtus V got through fifty years' work. He had teams of men labouring day and night to put the dome on St Peter's. He had the obelisk moved, inch by inch, by hundreds of workmen and mules, to its present central position in the piazza. He built the Vatican Library. He constructed an aqueduct over valleys and hills to bring water twenty miles into Rome. He well earned his nickname, 'The Consecrated Whirlwind'.

Allied to titanic energy was a fierce and clamorous egotism. He asserted his temporal jurisdiction over all kings and princes. When the Jesuit, Robert Bellarmine, the stoutest champion of the papacy since Aquinas, suggested in his book of Controversies that the pope only had indirect jurisdiction over temporal rulers, Sixtus resolved to censure him. He could for any reason, he said, and whenever he pleased, appoint or dismiss anyone, emperors included. He also disapproved of the theologian Vittorio for daring to write that it was lawful to disobey unjust orders of a pope. Yes, he, Sixtus, pontiff, would ban the books of both these renegades.

The cardinals of the Congregation of the Index were too terrified to tell his Holiness that these eminent authors based their views on the works of countless saints and scholars. Count Olivares, the Spanish ambassador in Rome, wrote to his master Philip II that the cardinals stayed silent 'for fear Sixtus might give them a taste of his sharp temper and perhaps put the saints themselves on the Index'.

Sixtus was particularly ungracious towards Bellarmine. The Jesuit had gallantly co-operated with him on editing the works of St Ambrose. It cannot have been easy. At every point, Sixtus had overruled his judgement. Afterwards, the pope made the order that his version was now the standard text. It was and it remains the most unreliable in existence.

The same high-handed approach he adopted to the Bible. The results were devastating.

The Latin version of the Bible, the Vulgate, was the work of St Jerome in the fourth century. By the Middle Ages it had pride of place. By then, many false readings had crept in, owing to sleepy copyists. With printing, editions multiplied, as did the errors. At the Reformation, Protestants had their own versions of the Bible; it was imperative for Catholics to have a reliable text of the Vulgate in all disputes.

The Council of Trent in 1546 had called the Vulgate the church's authentic version of the Bible. It alone was to be used in lectures, disputations, sermons. 'Authentic' means that Catholics can be sure it is free from doctrinal and moral error and substantially faithful to the originals. When the fathers of Trent commissioned a new edition of the Vulgate, they had no idea of the size of the task. Eleven popes lived and died, and nothing happened. Until Sixtus V.

Three years into his pontificate, at the end of 1588, the scholars he had appointed to edit the Vulgate presented him with their final text. There was too much scholarship in it for the pope's liking; and they had put in too many variant readings. He shouted the president of the commission, Cardinal Carafa, out of his room, screaming he could do far better on his own. This astounding claim he set about trying to prove. In a 300-word sentence, he declared in a Bull that he, the pope, was the only proper person to decide the question of an authentic Bible for the church.

Hour after hour he laboured, and night after night, for he

[Didacus]

It always amazed me how much effort people are willing to invest in trying to escape authority.

[tgoldson]

Didacus, on Dec 28 2007, 08:55 AM, said:

It always amazed me how much effort people are willing to invest in trying to escape authority.

Why the digging up of threads from 2003?

[Didacus]

Just trying to catch up. been awhile since I had the time to read through threads.

[Lil Red]

i agree. cut and paste's stink

[goldenchild17]

don't think he posts on here any more. He might still be at CGR if you want to bug him about it.

[Sacred Music Man]

His posts were excruciatingly long. What was his point? Is anyone goona give a rebuttal? Or what?

[kafka]

flabbergasting!

[reyb]

I do not think I am patient enough but I will try. I hope I will not be hospitalized. Will you please, say it again? :sadder:

[fides quarens intellectum]

Sacred Music Man, on Dec 28 2007, 04:38 PM, said:

His posts were excruciatingly long. What was his point? Is anyone goona give a rebuttal? Or what?

i would hope he hasn't been waiting around all this time for a rebuttal.

[kafka]

15:11} And he said: “A certain man had two sons.
{15:12} And the younger of them said to the father, ‘Father, give me the portion of your estate which would go to me.’ And he divided the estate between them.
{15:13} And after not many days, the younger son, gathering it all together, set out on a long journey to a distant region. And there, he dissipated his substance, living in luxury.
{15:14} And after he had consumed it all, a great famine occurred in that region, and he began to be in need.
{15:15} And he went and attached himself to one of the citizens of that region. And he sent him to his farm, in order to feed the swine.
{15:16} And he wanted to fill his belly with the scraps that the swine ate. But no one would give it to him.
{15:17} And returning to his senses, he said: ‘How many hired hands in my father’s house have abundant bread, while I perish here in famine!
{15:18} I shall rise up and go to my father, and I will say to him: Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you.
{15:19} I am not worthy to be called your son. Make me one of your hired hands.’
{15:20} And rising up, he went to his father. But while he was still at a distance, his father saw him, and he was moved with compassion, and running to him, he fell upon his neck and kissed him.
{15:21} And the son said to him: ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and before you. Now I am not worthy to be called your son.’
{15:22} But the father said to his servants: ‘Quickly! Bring out the best robe, and clothe him with it. And put a ring on his hand and shoes on his feet.
{15:23} And bring the fatted calf here, and kill it. And let us eat and hold a feast.
{15:24} For this son of mine was dead, and has revived; he was lost, and is found.’ And they began to feast.
{15:25} But his elder son was in the field. And when he returned and drew near to the house, he heard music and dancing.
{15:26} And he called one of the servants, and he questioned him as to what these things meant.
{15:27} And he said to him: ‘Your brother has returned, and your father has killed the fatted calf, because he has received him safely.’
{15:28} Then he became indignant, and he was unwilling to enter. Therefore, his father, going out, began to plead with him.
{15:29} And in response, he said to his father: ‘Behold, I have been serving you for so many years. And I have never transgressed your commandment. And yet, you have never given me even a young goat, so that I might feast with my friends.
{15:30} Yet after this son of yours returned, who has devoured his substance with loose women, you have killed the fatted calf for him.’
{15:31} But he said to him: ‘Son, you are with me always, and all that I have is yours.
{15:32} But it was necessary to feast and to rejoice. For this brother of yours was dead, and has revived; he was lost, and is found.’ ”

these verses refer to the Protestant & Orthodox churches. Symbolically, The Prodigal Son refers to the Protestant Church.

They shall reunite with the Catholic Church since Christ knew what would happen and prayed:

{17:20} But I am not praying for them only, but also for those who through their word shall believe in me.
{17:21} So may they all be one. Just as you, Father, are in me, and I am in you, so also may they be one in us: so that the world may believe that you have sent me.
{17:22} And the glory that you have given to me, I have given to them, so that they may be one, just as we also are one.

[Deb]

I couldn't read all of that but, I think this person does not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope or in the Catholic Church. That is okay. You don't have to be Catholic. There are another 30,000 denominations of Christians that you can go with. Some were just started this year. Ya know, the ones who are loosely based on the Catholic Bible? The ones who make up their rules of life as they go along? You can go try them all on like you would a pair of pants and see what fits the way YOU want to live your life.
That is what I did but dang, I ended up Catholic.

[IcePrincessKRS]

Deb, on Jan 20 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

I couldn't read all of that but, I think this person does not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope or in the Catholic Church. That is okay. You don't have to be Catholic. There are another 30,000 denominations of Christians that you can go with. Some were just started this year. Ya know, the ones who are loosely based on the Catholic Bible? The ones who make up their rules of life as they go along? You can go try them all on like you would a pair of pants and see what fits the way YOU want to live your life.
That is what I did but dang, I ended up Catholic.

:hehe: :))

[IcePrincessKRS]

Deb, on Jan 20 2008, 06:24 PM, said:

I couldn't read all of that but, I think this person does not believe in the Infallibility of the Pope or in the Catholic Church. That is okay. You don't have to be Catholic. There are another 30,000 denominations of Christians that you can go with. Some were just started this year. Ya know, the ones who are loosely based on the Catholic Bible? The ones who make up their rules of life as they go along? You can go try them all on like you would a pair of pants and see what fits the way YOU want to live your life.
That is what I did but dang, I ended up Catholic.

:hehe: :))

[blovedwolfofgod]

one day, i shall write a treatise that leaves the phatmassers flabbergasted and unable to respond... however, it probably wont be anti-catholic, so there would be no reason to respond... i guess i shall have to join a protestant board... again...

[Sacred Music Man]

Don't bother. They might hate you too...

Just kidding. We love ya, buddy :grouphug:

[Selah]

Mmm, copypasta.

[Hilde]

I ever tried that