"The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter's successor, 'is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.' 'For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.'" - Catechism section 882

"'The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith - he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals'"�This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself." - Catechism Section 891

These two quotes from the Catechism of the Catholic Church sum up the Catholic belief about the papacy. Here are the basics of what these quotes teach:

1) The pope is the successor Peter and head of Christ's Church on earth.
2) The pope's official teachings are infallible. Infallibility (not erring in teachings) is different from impeccability (not sinning), and there are three main conditions for a specific teaching from the pope to be infallible:
     A) He must be teaching "as supreme pastor and teacher of the faithful." That is, he must be teaching specifically as pope, not as merely an ordinary theologian.
     B) He must be proclaiming a doctrine about faith or morals. If it's about anything else, it's not infallible.
     C) He must be proclaiming a doctrine. That is, he must be proclaiming something that is to be believed by all Catholics without exception.

"And Jesus answered him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - Matthew 16:17-19

Here, Jesus singles out Simon for four things:

1) He changes his name to Peter, which means "rock."
2) He says that he will build the Church on him.
3) He gives Him the keys to the kingdom of heave.
4) He gives Him the power to bind and loose.

I. Simon's name changed to Peter

In the bible, name changes signify important events and important people. Here are some examples:

1) "No longer shall your name be Abram, but your name shall be Abraham; for I have made you the ancestor of a multitude of nations." - Genesis 17:5
2) "God said to Abraham, 'As for Sarah your wife, you shall not call her Sarai, but Sarah shall be her name. I will bless her, and moreover I will give you a son by
     her. I will bless her, and she shall give rise to nations; kings of peoples shall come from her.'" - genesis 17:15-16
3) "Then the man said, 'You shall no longer be called Jacob, but Israel, for you have striven with God and with humans, and have prevailed.'" - Genesis 32:28

We see that Abraham, Sarah, and Jacob all had their names changed to signify an important point in their lives and in the history of the Jews and their importance. If these people had their names changes to signify importance, why would Peter's name change not be viewed the same?

Some may object that Peter was not the only apostle to have his name changed; Saul's name was changed to Saul. However, his name was not changed by God. The transition from Saul to Paul comes in Acts 13:9 where we read,

"But Saul, also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, looked intently at him"

God did not change Saul's name to Paul; it was most likely Paul himself who chose to take on another name.

II. Peter as the rock

The name "Peter" means "rock," so Jesus' play on words is clear when He said, "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church." Some non-Catholics, however, object that Peter was NOT the rock upon which Jesus built the Church; rather, they say it was Peter's faith (in Matthew 16:16, Peter proclaimed his faith in Jesus as the Messiah) or Jesus Himself. How do they come to such a bizarre conclusion? Matthew uses two different Greek words for "Peter" and "rock," "petros" and "petra," respectively. They say that "petros" means a small pebble, while "petra" means a large rock (or an immovable stone, or something of the sort). They claim that Jesus was contrasting Peter, a little pebble, with either his faith or with Himself. While this argument may seem convincing at first, it falls apart under careful scrutiny.

1) What proponents of the petros/petra argument would have Jesus saying is absolutely ridiculous; consider what Jesus' words would be:

"Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! You are an insignificant little pebble, and I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heave. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

Now is that absolutely ridiculous or what? Aside from the fact that calling Peter a little pebble amidst great praises makes no sense, it would also put the building of the Church in a weird context. The whole passage is about promises Jesus makes to Peter, and then He throws in something about either Himself or Peter's faith. That makes no sense! While some may say that Peter's faith as the rock would fit in perfectly with promises made to Peter, but it doesn't. Peter's faith is not the same as the man. The passage is about PROMISES MADE SPECIFICALLY TO PETER, and building the Church on Peter's faith is not a promise specifically to Peter himself.

2) While the words "petros" and "petra" may have had different meanings in ancient Greek poetry, they had become synonyms by the first century, with "lithos" being the word for a small rock.

"Some who are unconvinced of the proposition that petros and petra mean the same thing should consider that there is another common Greek word that simply means 'stone.' It is the word lithos. 'Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been lithos ('stone' of almost any size).' Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., The Expositor's Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368 [additional editors include Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. of Trinity Divinity School; Bruce K. Waltke of Regent College; James Montgomery Boice, Pastor of Tenth Presbyterian Church, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Merrill C. Tenney of Wheaton College]." Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 20.

"In Aramaic 'Peter' and Rock are the same word; in Greek (here), they are cognate terms used interchangeably by this period." Craig S. Keener, The IVP Bible Background Commentary New Testament, (Downer's Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1993), 90.

3) Jesus spoke Aramaic, and the Aramaic word for "rock" is "kepha," which is what Jesus called Peter. We know this from John 1:42, a parallel verse to Matthew 16:18 (Jesus calls Peter "Cephas," which is the Greek transliteration of "kepha"). While there are two different Greek words and therefore a possibility of a difference, there is only one Aramaic word, meaning that there is no possibility for difference.

"In English one says 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock.' But in Aramaic, it is 'Thou are Kepha, and upon this kepha.'" Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 18.

"But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between petra and petros]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, "Thou are kipho and on this kipho." The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, "Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.' (Comp. Buxtorf.) Beza called to attention the fact that it is so likewise in French: 'Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre'; and Nicholson suggests that we could say 'Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.'" John A. Broadus, Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.

So, if "petra" and "petros" mean the same thing, why did Matthew use two different Greek words? "Petra" is a feminine noun, but Peter is a man, so he had to use the masculine "petros" for Peter's name.

"In order to form a personal name for a man in the Greek language from the Aramaic, one would have to change the feminine name for rock, petra, into a masculine personal name for rock, or petros." Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 20.

Non-Catholics will also argue that many Old Testament passages say that God is the rock (some even say ONLY God is the rock), such as Psalms 18:2, 18:31, and 18:46. They say that only God is a rock, so Peter could not have been the rock upon which Jesus built the Church. First, Peter is a rock in a different way than God is. While God is the source of everything, Peter is the visible head of the Church on earth. His status as rock comes from and is conferred to him by God; the two are not in competition. Secondly, this argument still doesn't get around the fact that Peter IS called the rock in Matthew 16:18. Thirdly, Abraham is called a rock in Isaiah 51:1-2, so why can't Peter also be called a rock? The metaphor of "rock" means three different things when applied to God, Abraham, and Peter, and none of them contradicts the other two.

III. The keys of the kingdom of heaven

What do the keys of the kingdom of heaven represent? Many non-Catholics interpret this as meaning simply that by Peter's preaching, he will open up the kingdom of heaven to many people. The problem with this is that Jesus ONLY gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter, yet he wasn't the only apostle who preached and brought people to Christ. In fact, if anybody was to receive the keys as a symbol of bringing people to Christ, it should have been Paul. He was the one who brought the most souls to Christ; he, as the apostle to the Gentiles, probably converted more people than any other apostle. Non-Catholics will sometimes say that in Matthew 18:18, when all the apostles received the power to bind and loose, they also received the keys. However, the power to bind and loose is different from the keys of the kingdom; the other apostles only received the power to bind and loose but not the keys.

So, what did Jesus mean when He entrusted the keys to Peter? In ancient culture, keys symbolized power (Isaiah 22:22; Revelation 1:18, 3:7), and this tradition continues into our own day when a mayor gives a respected citizen a key to the city. Many scholars, both Protestant and Catholic, have recognized that Matthew 16:19 is modeled after Isaiah 22:22, in which God gives Eliakim they key of the house of David and makes him steward over the house of David.

"On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah, and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open." - Isaiah 22:20-22

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom'? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them in his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim:�(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, (Downders Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983), 143-144.

"In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of the house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house." Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 203.

"The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Matthew 16:19] is almost certainly based on Is. 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him." D. Guthrie and others, The New Bible Commentary, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1953) [reprinted by Inter-varsity press], 837.

IV. The power to bind and loose

Non-Catholics will often object that the power to bind and loose has no papal implications in Matthew 16:19 because all the apostles received it in Matthew 18:18. However, while the apostles received the power as a whole (meaning that they could bind and loose together as a group, not individually), Peter received this power BY HIMSELF. Only Peter could bind and loose without the other apostles. If the rest of the apostles received this power in the same way as Peter, then why did he receive it separately before the rest?

So, what was the power to bind and loose? According to Jewish rabbinical sources, it was the power to forbid or prohibit things relating to the interpretation of the Scriptures. Whatever Peter bound or loosed would be bound or loosed in heaven (that is, honored by God), and God does not lie (Titus 1:2), so whatever Peter bound and loosed must have been infallible!

"'Whatsoever thou shalt bind.' In these words Jesus was conferring on Peter in a special and unique way the power which was conferred on the Apostles as a body on another occasion. He was simply using the language of the day. Everybody knew what it meant. The Rabbis were said to bind when they forbade something and to loose when they permitted it. Francis J. Ripley, The Pope: Vicar of Jesus Christ, (Dublin: Catholic Truth Society, 1965), 9.

"What do the expression 'bind' and 'loose' signify? According to Rabbinical usage two explanations are equally plausible: 'prohibit' and 'permit,' that is, 'establish rules'; or 'put under the ban' and 'acquit.'" Oscar Cullman, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), 204-205.

"Even more striking [than the keys] is Jesus' statement that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. What is meant by bind and loose? M'Neile explains: '"Bind" and "loose" appear to represent the Aramaic�technical terms for the verdict of a teacher of the Law who, on the strength of his expert knowledge of the oral tradition, declared some action or thing "bound" i.e. forbidden, or "loosed" i.e. permitted.' In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, that would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God." Ralph Earle, "Matthew," in A. F. Harper and others, eds., Beacon Bible Commentary, vol. 6, (Kansas City, MO: Beacon Hill, 1964), 156.

"The keeper of the keys has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isa. 22:20-25, which may have influenced Matthew here). The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus, who taught with authority (7:29) and has given his authority to his disciples (10:1, 8) here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." M. Eugene Boring, "Matthew," in Pheme Perkins and others, eds., The New Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1995), 346.

In the power to bind and loose, we see another parallel between Matthew 16:19 and Isaiah 22:22. Peter received the power to bind and loose, and Eliakim received the power to "open, and no one shall shut�shut, and no one shall open." Because these two passages are exactly parallel (both have the giving of the keys and the power to bind and loose/open and shut), there is good proof that the office of Peter did not die with him.

The office of steward over the house was passed down from generation to generation, so it makes sense that Peter's office (the papacy) would also be passed down from generation to generation.

"That the office of royal steward is successive (or dynastic) has great weight when one understands the relationship between the prophecy concerning Eliakim and that of Peter. The Old Testament makes a strong case for apostolic succession�During the reign of Solomon, we first discover Ahishar, who is "over the house" in 1 Kings 4:6�Next we find Azra as steward "over the house" during the reign of King Elah (1 Kings 16:9). The next recorded steward is Obadiah, who was "over the house" during the reign of King Ahab (1 Kings 18:3)�The Scriptures show us that the office of steward was one of succession�Since Jesus restored the throne of David, he also restored the office of royal steward. Jesus succeeded David; Peter succeeded Eliakim. Stephen K. Ray, Upon This Rock, (San Francisco, CA: Ignatius Press, 1999), 291.

"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him." - Matthew 10:2-4

Whenever all the apostles are listed, Peter is always first, and Judas is always last (Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13). Scripture even calls them "Peter and the apostles" at times (Acts 2:37, 5:29, for example). In fact, Matthew, in the quote above, even called Peter "first," indicating that he held a position of primacy.

"Whenever the Apostles are enumerated in the Gospels, St. Peter is invariably named the first. St. Matthew expressly calls him 'the first' (x. 2), the same Greek word (protos) being rendered "chief" in chap. xx. 27, and other passages. Mr. Allies remarks: 'Now, that second and third do not follow, shows that "first" is not a numeral here, but designates rank and pre-eminence. Thus in heathen authors the word "first" by itself indicates the more excellent in its kind: thus in the Septuagint occur, "first friend of the king," "first of the singers," "the first priest," i.e., the chief priest (Nehem. xii.46; 2 Chron. xxvi. 20). So our Lord: "Whichever among you will be first (Matt. xx. 27); "Bring forth the first robe" (Luke xv. 22); and St. Paul: "Sinners, of whom I am the first," i.e., chief (1 Tim. i. 15). Thus "the first of the island" (Acts xxviii. 7), means the chief magistrate; and "first" generally, in Latin phraseology, the superior or prince.' St. Peter, His Name and Office, pg. 95, 2d. edit." Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri-The Titles and Perogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 47.

"Simon, Simon, listen! Satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural, siniasai] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular, sou] that your [singular, sou] own faith may not fail; and you [singular, su], when once you have turned back, strengthen your [singular, sou] brothers." - Luke 22:31-32

"In Luke 22:31, whom does Satan desire to sift as wheat? All twelve of the apostles. The Lord speaks to Simon Peter, but addressesd the rest also. The Greek words meaning 'you' [the Greek text uses the word "you" twice, but the NRSV cuts it down to once] in this verse are plural in number and form, and are used two times: 'Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.'�In Luke 22:32, is the 'you' plural or singular? The Greek words meaning 'you' in this verse are singular in number and form, and they are used four times. They are directed at Peter alone: 'Simon, Simon, behold.'" (Luke 22:31). Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 141.

Here we see that while Satan would sift through all of the apostles, Jesus only prayed that Peter's faith would not fail. Why would Jesus pray specifically for Peter? Why would He command only Peter to strengthen his brethren? In times of crisis, leaders must step up and strengthen those under them, which is exactly what Peter would do. Jesus prayed for Peter and commanded him to strengthen the other apostles because he, as the first pope, was the leader.

"When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' A second time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, 'Do you love me?' And he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep." - John 21:15-17

Here, Jesus uses the image of a shepherd to tell Peter what his role would be. In the ancient world, the metaphor of a shepherd was commonly used to denote rulers (2 Samuel 5:2, Isaiah 40:9-11, Ezekiel 34:23-24, John 10:11-16), so Jesus was installing Peter as the ruler (pope) of His people.

"Anyone who overheard that conversation [John 21:15-17] at the time would have found nothing strange about Our Lord's use of the metaphor of the shepherd. Profane and sacred writers used it to indicate the functions of teaching and governing. Homer, the first Greek poet, author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, who is said to have lived before 700 B.C., referred to kings as to 'shepherds of the people.' Hesychius, the grammarian of Alexandria, who probably lived in the fifth century A.D., wrote a Greek dictionary in which he said that 'shepherd' means the same as 'king.' There are many examples in Scripture. God said to David: 'Thou shalt feed my people, Israel, and thou shalt be prince over Israel' (2 [Samuel] 5:2). This is an example of the Hebrew way of speaking in which the second phrase repeats the meaning of the first in a different metaphor. It is called Hebrew parallelism. Again, 'Behold the Lord shall come with strength; and his arm shall rule�he shall feed his flock like a shepherd' (Isaias 40:9-11)." Francis J. Ripley, The Pope: Vicar of Jesus Christ, (Dublin: Catholic Truth Society, 1965), 9-10.

"Then after three years I did go up to Jerusalem to visit [Greek: historesai] Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days" - Galatians 1:18

Here, Paul is vindicating that the Gospel he preached was from God (verse 11). He mentions his visit to Peter to show that what he preached was authentic and conformed to what the other apostles preached.

"In verse 18 Paul explains that he went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter. The verb used is historesai which in this case can be best understood if we begin with its cognate noun form histor. The histor in ancient Greece functioned as examiner and arbiter in legal matters. He was learned in the law and skilled in examining witnesses. He knew how to ask the right questions of people who were being examined in order to ascertain the truth in matters of dispute. The truth he was after was not philosophical truth in some abstract metaphysical sense, but rather the kind of truth that can issue in practical wisdom. In the final analysis the histor would be called upon to make a judgment. The histor was a judge." William R. Farmer and Roch Kereszty, Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome, (New York: Paulist, 1990), 30.

"Paul is not forensically diminishing his authority by 'making inquiry' of Peter. On the contrary, his use of historesai in this context conceptually places Peter in the dock. Paul is the histor. Peter is the one being cross-examined. What is at issue is the truth in a whole range of practical matters matter whish Paul wants to discuss with Peter." William R. Farmer and Roch Kereszty, Peter and Paul in the Church of Rome, (New York: Paulist, 1990), 36.

Now, the question is why would he go specifically to see Peter? Why did Paul not go up just to speak to the apostles in general? In verse 19, he says that he also saw the apostle James (although he went specifically to see Peter), so it could not been because Peter was the only one around. So, why Peter? Because he was the head of the Church.

When reading the first half of the book of Acts, Peter's prominence immediately jumps out at you. Whenever he is named with any other apostles (including the list of all 11 which I already mentioned), he is always named first (Acts 3:1, 3:11, 4:1, for example). In 1:15, Peter stands up before a crowd of about 120 Christians and tells them that they have to choose a replacement for Judas. On Pentecost, after the Holy Spirit descended upon the disciples, Peter was the one who made a speech to those outside. After Peter performed the first recorded miracle after Jesus' ascension (3:6-8), the people were astonished and gathered in Solomon's Portico, where Peter addressed them (3:12). When Peter and John were arrested for preaching about Jesus, it was Peter who spoke before the council (4:8). In 10:5-6, an angel commanded Cornelius, who would later become the first Gentile convert to Christianity, to go visit Peter to learn about the faith.

In the second half of Acts, Paul is the central figure, but this does not mean that Peter faded away into the background. The book of Acts focuses on the growth of the early Church, which was mostly from Gentile converts. Since Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8), he would obviously be the central missionary for the early Church.

"Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood." - Acts 15:19-20

This quote is from James bishop of Jerusalem at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). Even though Peter was at the council and spoke, non-Catholics say, James had the last word. However, if Peter was the pope, he would've had the last word; therefore, he wasn't the pope.

Let's take a look at the chain of events at the Council of Jerusalem. First, there was "much debate," and after this debate, Peter stood up and spoke (Acts 15:7). Notice that Peter spoke AFTER the debate had taken place, implying that he was speaking authoritatively. After he spoke, Paul and Barnabas gave testimony to the miracles God had worked through them among the Gentiles (verse 12). Next, James got up and spoke (verses 13-21). The phrase that non-Catholics focus on is "Therefore I have reached the decision," and they say that this shows he was speaking authoritatively and had the last word. Actually, James was not speaking authoritatively; he was just backing up Peter's decision. As bishop of Jerusalem, he naturally would've held a place of honor. In fact, the Greek phrase for "I have reached the decision" could be better translated as "I give my opinion."

"The actual words used, 'And so I give my voice' (Ego krino) (v. 19), do not actually favor the view that he [James] was summing up, or deciding the matter on his own authority. Elsewhere in Acts [13:46, 16:15, 26:8] the same verb krino is used to denote the expression of an opinion and could better be expressed by the phrase 'in my opinion,' or 'as for me.'" Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes, (Baltimore: Helicon, 1960), 32.

"The Greek phrase ego krino in Acts 15:19 which James uses to introduce his contribution to the discussion at the Council of Jerusalem should not be absolutized to represent a dogmatic or unilateral proclamation on James' part. The Greek word krino has an extensive semantic range, including such strong determinations as God's judgment on various entities (cf. Rom. 2:16; 3:6; 2 Tim. 4:1), but at the other extreme it refers merely to one's opinion on a subject without positive proof or absolute fact (cf. Rom. 14:5; 1 Cor. 7:37). In the passage in question, James' use of the phrase is closer to the opinion side of the semantic range. The emphatic ego ('I') shows that James is prefacing his remarks by an indication to his own feelings on the issue. There are only two other uses of ego krino in the New Testament. In John 8:15 the phrase 'I judge not�' is in a context which is speaking about forming opinions about men merely from external standards that have no basis in fact. Jesus teaches that one is to exclude himself from such false opinions. In the second usage in John 12:47 Jesus excludes himself from forming a judgment about someone, the emphasis being that he cannot do such without corroboration. According to A Translator's Handbook on the Acts of the Apostles, scholars Newman and Nida state that the words ego krino naturally mean 'It is my opinion' ([London:] United Bible Societies, 1972). Robert A. Sungenis, letter to authors, 16 March 1995, 2. Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and Rev. Mr. David Hess, Jesus, Peter and the Keys: A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy, (Goleta, CA: Queenship Publishing, 1996), 100-101.

"For he who worked through Peter making him an apostle to the circumcised also worked through me in sending me to the Gentiles" - Galatians 2:8

Some non-Catholics have used this verse to try and prove that Peter was only the head of the Jewish Christians, not the whole Church; however, they misinterpret what it means to be an apostle. Peter was the apostle to the Jews not because he was their head, but because he was sent out to preach to them. While he was sent to preach only to the Jews, this does not diminish his role as head of the whole Church (Matthew 16:18-19).

"But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood self-condemned; for until certain people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But after they came, he drew back and kept himself separate for fear of the circumcision faction." - Galatians 2:11-12

Non-Catholics use this passage to try and show that Peter wasn't infallible, but all they show is a misunderstanding of papal infallibility. As I said in the beginning, the pope is only infallible when teaching in his official capacity as pope, yet Peter was doing no such thing here. Paul rebuked him only for a PERSONAL PRACTICE, which is not infallible. Some also say that Peter could not have been the head of the Church because Paul rebuked him. However, being the head of the Church in no way implies that nobody can rebuke you if you are doing something very wrong; popes have been rebuked and criticized before.

Actually, this passage SUPPORTS Peter's primacy. In verse 13 we read that other Jews, including Barnabas, joined Peter in his hypocrisy. Now, if many even Barnabas (who preached with Paul and argued on his side at the Council of Jerusalem) was led astray, then Peter must have been VERY important; this passage alone shows that he was almost certainly the head of the Church.

Back