I recall several years ago when I was listening to a Pentecostal, “non-denominational” woman talk about spiritual warfare and she mentioned Jesus’ declaration to Peter about how “upon this rock I will build my church.” (Matthew 16:18). Take a look at the verse in context (Matthew 16:13-20 NIV translation):
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?" They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Christ.
This event is also retold in John 1:42. The woman said, “This verse has often been mistranslated to mean that Jesus was building His Church on Peter, when in fact, it is referring to Peter’s confession of faith.”
I found that interpretation rather startling and rather confusing because given the context and the language, it seemed very much a stretch to interpret Jesus’ words to mean anything beyond what He actually said.
But while this woman was by no means a Catholic-basher (since she believed that the Catholic Church was one of the few denominations left which would not let orthodox doctrine be tainted by liberal theology - she hardly saw the Catholic Church as “the whore of Babylon” of Revelation which most fundamentalists refer to her as!), I knew that her view was different from the way I was taught that the verse meant - that indeed, Jesus WAS founding a literal, physical Church here on Earth, on Peter. I couldn’t figure out how anyone could read the verse any differently until I did some research into the Protestant interpretation of the verse.
Every Fundamentalist source I have seen on this subject notes that in the Greek, Jesus uses two different words for “rock.” There is the word “Petra” which they claim means “big rock” then the word "Petros” (which is how Peter’s name in stated in the Greek - “Peter” is a transliteration of “Petros”) which means a “small pebble that can be easily moved or blown about by a gust of wind.”
As one Fundamentalist web-site claims: “Jesus Christ giving Simon a new name of Cephas which was Petros, a little stone was characteristic of Peter's life being blown about. One day Peter was following the Lord, the next day he was out fishing. At other times he was willing to lay down his life for Jesus, but prior to the crucifixion he denied his Lord. Jesus Christ was not referring to Peter as the foundation of the church, but he was referring to Peter's statement, that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God. This ‘rock’ = Greek petra, which is in the feminine gender, and therefore could not refer to Peter, which is in the masculine gender, but refers to Peter's confession of who Christ was!” (quote from http://bibleland.vrbc.com/john1.html)
The lack of research done by these and other fundamentalists astounds me. Are they really so ignorant or are they that much in denial of the Truth that they will ignore or suppress the facts so that the people they are trying to control are left in the dark? It makes me wonder. The resources are abundant so there is no excuse. But since the Protestants have for the past 500 years tried to rebel against the authority of the Church, and deny the papacy and Apostolic authority, I wouldn’t put it past these people to suppress the truth.
The Gospel according to Matthew was written in ARAMAIC as well as Hebrew, NOT GREEK. The Aramaic text left in various parts of the Greek version of this book shows this, and the book was later translated into Greek, possibly by Matthew himself. Bearing this in mind, the whole argument of “petros vs. petra” begins to unravel and fall apart. But there’s more.
Fundamentalists explain the verse: “that thou art Peter (Petros = a small moveable stone), and upon this rock (Petra = as a foundation unmovable) I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
Actually, by first-century A.D., the two Greek words “petros” and “petra” became synonyms and were used interchangeably. Any Greek scholar will confirm this. They meant “small stone” and “large rock” respectively, in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek-an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra had the same meaning. So this is the first strike against the argument. But it is the least significant.
Fundamentalists forget that Jesus didn't speak Greek to his disciples. He spoke ARAMAIC. And as I just mentioned, the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic and possibly Hebrew, as we know this from records kept by Eusebius of Caesarea (early Church father) -but it was translated into Greek early on, perhaps by Matthew himself. In any case the Aramaic/Hebrew original is lost (as are all the originals of the New Testament books), so all we have today is the Greek. Still, we know that the book was originally written in Aramaic, and have copies of the original to go back to.
Do you recall Peter's name in Aramaic? It's “Kepha.” In English translations of the Bible it is written as “Cephas.” That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word “Kepha” (rendered as "Kephas" in its Hellenistic form).
“Kepha” means “a large, massive stone”, the same as “petra.” (It doesn’t mean a little stone or a pebble-the Aramaic word for that is “evna.”) What Jesus said to Simon in Matthew 16:18 was this: “You are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my Church.”
When you understand what the Aramaic says, you see that Jesus was equating Simon and the rock; he wasn’t contrasting them.
In French one word, pierre, has always been used both for Simon’s new name and for the rock. So the meaning is only lost or muddled in English translations because looking at “Peter” one doesn't understand "rock" in seeing that name.
So why did the translators call Peter/Kepha "Petros" and not “Petra”? Well, “Petra” is a feminine word (the one fact which the Fundamentalist writer of the above site did manage to get right). And in translating from the Aramaic, the writer did not, would not, and both grammatically and socially COULD NOT give Peter a feminine name!!! So he translated it into the masculine form "PetrOS" ("os" being a masculine ending) which was a synonym for "petra." Had the intent of Jesus been to call Peter a little stone, the word in the Greek would be "lithos" to reflect the Aramaic “evna.” But Jesus did not use that word. He named Simon, son of Jonah “KEPHA” for a reason.
For an Evangelical Protestant Greek scholar’s admission of this, see D. A. Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), Frank E. Gaebelein, ed., 8:368.
Also, in terms of the grammatical structure of the sentence, Karl Keating, in his book Catholicism vs. Fundamentalism, comments:
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this-namely the establishment of the papacy-have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
It sure looks like Jesus was giving Peter a special role in a very literal, visible Church He was establishing on Earth. Peter was to be its head. For centuries, no group called into question whether there was any difference between the rock of the foundation of the Church being any different than the rock who was Peter. Only more recently has confusion been caused by those trying to uproot the text and context of Jesus’ spoken words from their original meaning.
Simon was renamed “Kepha” (as Abram was renamed “Abraham” or Saul was renamed “Paul”) for a reason much greater than that of Simon himself. No Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant would disagree that it is JESUS the Head of the spiritual and physical church on earth. But He did appoint humans to run His Church on Earth.
Fundamentalists like to point to the fact that Peter was hardly a man of great faith; that his faith wavered and he even denied knowing Jesus. This is very true. But God has always lifted the meek and given them strength and authority. Look at Abraham, Moses, and David, for example. All sinned, all were guilty of having doubts, having their faith falter, yet God still chose them and used them to glorify His Kingdom. Fundamentalists will say that, “well, Peter and Paul disputed in Acts and there is no evidence he had any primacy over the other Apostles.” We shall shortly see that they are once again mistaken.
"Jesus is installing Peter as a form of chief steward or prime minister under the King of Kings by giving him the keys to the kingdom. As can be seen in Isaiah 22:22, kings in the Old Testament appointed a chief steward to serve under them in a position of great authority to rule over the inhabitants of the kingdom. Jesus quotes almost verbatim from this passage in Isaiah, and so it is clear what he has in mind. He is raising Peter up as a father figure to the household of faith (Is. 22:21), to lead them and guide the flock (John 21:15-17). This authority of the prime minister under the king was passed on from one man to another down through the ages by the giving of the keys, which were worn on the shoulder as a sign of authority. Likewise, the authority of Peter has been passed down for 2000 years by means of the papacy. " (quote by: Karl Keating, Catholic Answers, and Catholicism and Fundamentalism)
These passages in Isaiah are referring to Eliakim son of Hilkiah, who was “prime minister” of Israel. Eliakim took over the office from an unworthy prime minister and here God was telling him that he had a special role as “steward” of the nation of Israel, to rule under the king alone (who was appointed by God). There are two primary symbols in Isaiah 22:20-25, the keys and the peg:
20 "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will be a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots-all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars. 25 "In that day," declares the LORD Almighty, "the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down." The LORD has spoken.
Eliakim has a “seat” or an “office” which would continue beyond Eliakim himself would have passed away. He had the key to the house of David, and the Lord put Eliakim firmly into place in this role.
However, note verse 25: “the peg driven into the firm place will give way; it will be sheared off and will fall, and the load hanging on it will be cut down.” This indicates that the office of Eliakim would eventually be put to an end by the Lord. It is not an eternal seat.
But in Matthew 16, there is no peg to give way, only the keys given to Peter, with which “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” This means that a mere MAN had authority over things in Heaven. This is a power the Father Himself has. This is not the type of authority one gives to a “small, insignificant rock,” nor to just anyone. Does that make sense to do?
According to Fundamentalists, Jesus told Peter, “You are an insignificant, little rock easily swayed by the wind, and on this BIG ROCK, I will found my Church…” But that is NOT what Jesus said. In fact, the context of the Fundamentalist mind-set makes no sense. Peter revealed not through the knowledge of man, but through the Holy Spirit within him that Jesus was the Messiah. Peter’s revelation was significant because it proved that the Father Himself picked Peter out to reveal this to him. Would the proper response to Peter, by Jesus then be to say, “Blessed are you, you little insignificant rock. And on this rock I will build my church.” The expression, “Blessed are you” is used only twice in a specific sense in the New Testament. It is used in a broad, general sense in the Beatitudes in Matthew 5 and Luke 6, the book of Revelation, and all throughout the Old Testament in Psalms, Proverbs and Isaiah, for example. In the New Testament, Elizabeth greets Mary in Luke 1:42, saying, “Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the child you will bear!” This sort of greeting was not common. It was a sign of a blessing (as the word implies), and in all senses, as distinguishing someone as unique (as the Beatitudes do: “blessed are the such-and-such, for they, in this unique regard will have such-and-such…”).
The word Jesus used to describe Peter is the same He used in the second part of his promise: KEPHA. Peter was singled out among all His disciples. Jesus uses the singular “you” (which cannot be noted in English, but can in other languages) and nowhere does He extend this authority to other Apostles (more on this later). When Jesus called Simon to be His disciple, he changed his name to Kepha for a reason.
In Scripture, the symbol of the “key” is only found in two places in the Old Testament, one being Isaiah 22. It symbolizes authority, power to rule, and permanence through intergenerational succession. The key given to Eliakim was to be passed on to his successor. It did not go to the grave with him. One can say that the key denotes a very specific office, or seat. The keys given to Peter would ultimately be given unto his successors.
Fundamentalists seem to view keys in the modern sense, since anyone can go to the local hardware store and get copies of keys made, and therefore think all Christians have these keys. But in the context of the Bible, keys back then were possessed only by people who were given a specific authority. It was not an authority shared with just anyone of a household, city, or nation.
Satan then took a particular interest in Peter, according to Jesus: “Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen [or “confirm”] your brothers.” (Luke 22:32). Again we see Simon being singled out. Why would Satan be so interested in Simon Peter in particular. In no way did he show this same interest to the other Apostles, otherwise Jesus would have told them all to be on guard. This denotes the seriousness of the authority bestowed upon Peter. For Peter had a power that Satan himself never had. Peter would be put to the test but remember that Jesus told him that the gates of Hell would not prevail over his Church. Continually Peter is singled out - three times in fact: when he is first called to serve Christ (Matthew) and was named Peter; when He was given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (Matthew 16); and in this instance when Jesus forewarned Peter that Satan wanted to see Peter fall.
Consequently, Peter denies Jesus three times (as Jesus told him he would) yet in John 21, after Jesus’ resurrection we see that Jesus singles out Peter yet again, and asks him three times, “Do you love me?” and asks him to “feed my sheep.”
Jesus, the “Good Shepherd” (John 10:11, 14) makes Peter a shepherd to feed His sheep. Earlier on, Jesus who is “the Rock” (2 Samuel 22:32, 47; Psalm 18, 19; Isaiah 44; 1 Peter 2:16, 1 Cor. 10:4, etc.) names Simon “the Rock” and gives him authority to bind and loosen anything in Heaven and on Earth. Jesus never renamed any other Apostles (James remained James, John remained John, Thomas remained Thomas…), only Peter (Saul/Paul came later). Jesus is constantly singling out Peter in the Scriptures. Perhaps the New Testament writers were trying to drive a point home?
The reverberations cannot be any more clear. How else can one explain the meaning, context and reinforcement of Christ’s statements to Peter other than in the very literal way He meant them? Protestant Fundamentalists have to bend over backwards to explain these problematic verses because to acknowledge that Christ did this, is to ultimately unravel their notion that Jesus did not establish a visible Church on Earth. But the evidence that He DID, based on the Scriptures, and reinforced by the Church fathers, is overwhelming.
Remember that every New Testament event in the building of Christ’s Church has a parallel in the Old Testament (Luke 24:44). That is because Jesus was fulfilling Old Testament prophecy! The Psalms of David give us glimpses into the coming of the Messiah (mesiach), the Christ. All Authority would be given unto Him in the New Israel, the Church. Jesus instilled a New Covenant with the shedding of His blood, as there had been an Old Covenant made with the sacrifices of Moses and the Law. God called forth the nation of Israel out of slavery in Egypt to be His representatives on Earth. When the Word became Flesh, he called forth the Church, out from slavery to Sin (John 8:34; Romans 6) and to be “the light of the world,” (Matthew 5:14 - which Jesus also called HIMSELF in John 8:12 and 12:46… coincidence?) “the salt of the Earth” (Matthew 5:13) and “the pillar and bulwark of truth” (1 Timothy 3:15). How can an abstract, invisible Church fulfill such functions?
In the New Testament, the Word became Flesh (John 1). The invisible God, He who created the universe made Himself visible (Colossians 1). Would then the now visible God become invisible again? The Bible clearly states that the Church is the Body of Christ (Romans 7:4, 12:5; 1 Cor. 12:12, 27; 2 Cor. 5:10; Eph. 3:6, 5:23; Col. 1:14, 3:15; Hebrews 10).
Christ is the head of the Church. There is no dispute about this (1 Corinthians 3:11, Colossians 2:10, Revelation 12:10, etc.). All authority had been given to Him from the Father (Matthew 28:18; Mark 1-3, John 17:2, Ephesians 1:22-23, etc.) He is the KING of Kings, Lord of Lords, with an eternal reign. And with His eternal authority, he can bestow power and authority to those whom HE chooses.
King of Heaven would not be staying on Earth, but needed representation on Earth. Christ began to establish the Church by choosing 12 Apostles. One of these Apostles, Judas, would ultimately betray Him, and He knew it, but that did not matter. There would be 12 Apostles. Early on in His ministry, Jesus gave them authority and power when He sent them out to preach the Gospel. Jesus “gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness” (Matt. 10:1) and commanded them: “Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons. Freely you have received, freely give” (v. 8).
The Apostles were all men whom Jesus personally chose, for whatever reason, to go about and preach Christ’s Gospel to the people. These Apostles converted many who had faith and in turn appointed them to positions within the structure of their fellowship. We see that After His resurrection, Jesus Christ returns to the Apostles and gives them instructions to make disciples and authority to do many things:
“Again Jesus said, ‘Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.’ And with that he breathed on them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive anyone his sins, they are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven." (John 20:21-23 - Are you Protestants sure that confession to a priest is unscriptural? See also James 5:16)
“Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’” (Matthew 28:18-20 - a note we’ll come back to in our discussion on Scripture. John 20:30-31 and 21:25 state that not everything Jesus shared with His Apostles was recorded in that Book, and had it been, “even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written”; bear this in mind when it comes to questions about the Bible being the final, complete, sufficient authority for faith, that not everything Jesus transmitted to His Apostles is written in the Bible… wouldn’t there be weight in the teachings of the Apostles who knew and understood more than even the Bible transmits?)
“But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)
Jesus was sending out His Apostles to witness to the people, to convert them and by trusting in Jesus, bring about their salvation. The Church received the Holy Spirit, as Jesus promised, and all the believers were filled with the joy of the Lord spiritually in their midst and in their hearts, while they, the physical Body of Christ on Earth.
“I have given them your word and the world has hated them, for they are not of the world any more than I am of the world. My prayer is not that you take them out of the world but that you protect them from the evil one. They are not of the world, even as I am not of it. Sanctify] them by the truth; your word is truth. As you sent me into the world, I have sent them into the world. For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified.” (John 17:14-19).
Jesus prays for the unity of His Church. Read John 17:20-22. Jesus’ message is very powerful: “My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”
And indeed, the Church was of “one heart and soul” (Acts 4:32). This is as Christ willed it: “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16).
Are the over 28,000 Christian denominations out there currently of “one heart and soul”? “Is Christ divided” (1 Corinthians 1:13)?
How could people know the Father? Through the Son whom He sent. How could people come to know the Son whom the Father sent? Through the Church whom Christ established and sent out!
That Church is Apostolic.
Believers in Christ were not left without any authoritative teaching and guidance. Jesus instructed the Apostles verbally. Those Apostles in turn appointed others and taught them. The authority the Son received from the Father, the Church received from the Son. In Acts 2:42, for example, we see that the Apostles’ teaching embodied the true faith and the converts to Christianity “devoted themselves to the Apostles’ teaching.” The Apostles solved the problem of distribution of food to the widows in Acts 6. I Acts 15, the first serious doctrinal dispute arose over whether circumcision was necessary for salvation. The Holy Spirit guided the Apostles to convene the first Church Council to and concluded that it wasn’t necessary to be circumcised in order to be saved.
And they did so WITHOUT THE BIBLE. At the time, the Bible was only the Old Testament. The OT could not resolve the issues facing the new Church which Christ founded. Obviously the Church had to resolve these manners and remember that they could, because Christ gave them that authority. The Church had the mind of the Holy Spirit (Acts 15:28; 1 Cor. 2:16) and all the members of the New Church, members of the Body of Christ, acknowledged and accepted the decision of the Church council and the Apostolic authority.
The Church has had since the very beginning a knowable, visible structure. It does not imply some esoteric structure according to the Bible. In Acts, there was no question where to turn to join the Church. Look to the Apostles, and the presbyters and deacons they appointed (Acts 6:1-6). The whole Body of Christ was unified under their leadership.
The Church was “of one heart and soul” because they had the assurance of Truth in the Apostles’ teachings (John 16:13). The visible, literal Church body Christ founded was and is essential so that all Christians may “attain to the unity of faith… no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine.” (Ephesians 4:13-14).
Outside this very literal, visible Church body was apostasy. The Gnostic gospels were prevalent. Several heresies were out there. Where would one go to find the Truth? The Church Jesus Christ founded on the Apostles! (Acts 16:1-8)
Apostolic succession, through Christ’s visible Church was not only the practice at the time, it was the tradition to be passed on and heeded to, for the Church had Christ’s authority:
“Remember the words I spoke to you: 'No servant is greater than his master.'[ 15:20 John 13:16] If they persecuted me, they will persecute you also. If they obeyed my teaching, they will obey yours also.” (John 15:20)
“ ‘If you love me, you will obey what I command. And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever-- the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him, because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you. Before long, the world will not see me anymore, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him.’ Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, ‘But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?’ Jesus replied, ‘If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him. He who does not love me will not obey my teaching. These words you hear are not my own; they belong to the Father who sent me. All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.’ ” (John 14:15-27)
“You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you to go and bear fruit--fruit that will last. Then the Father will give you whatever you ask in my name.” (John 15:16 - the Apostles are supposed to spread the Gospel and “bear fruit that will last”! This goes beyond just the conversion of individuals; it entails preserving the faith through their offices.)
“So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings [or traditions] we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.” (2 Thessalonians 2:15)
And the Paul (with his Apostolic authority) even goes so far as to order: “Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us” (2 Thess. 3:6).
“The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.” (Titus 1:5)
“Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position.” (2 Peter 3:15-17)
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2).
"Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus; guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us" (2 Tim. 1:13-14).
"You, then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:1-2).
"First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, because no prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God" (2 Peter 1:20-21).
"‘Though I have much to write to you, I would rather not use paper and ink, but I hope to come to see you and talk with you face to face, so that our joy may be complete" (2 John 12).
“Remember your leaders, who spoke the word of God to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever.” (Hebrews 13:7-8)
Pay close attention to the reoccurring words here: “spoke”; “traditions”; “heard”; rather not use paper and ink”; “entrusted”; “remember”; “guard”; “command”; “directed”; “word of mouth.”
Without a Bible how did the early Church survive? The physical Church! Who gave us the Bible? The Church! And who decided that heretical books like the Gospel of Thomas (a Gnostic heresy), and the various heresies were to be rejected and NOT put into Holy Scripture and the other Gospels were inspired? Take a guess...
As quoted above, Paul told Timothy: "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession-his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
In Revelation 2:17 & 29, Jesus' warnings are clear about rejecting the physical church He established. He also said, “I am the true vine, and my Father is the gardener. He cuts off every branch in me that bears no fruit, while every branch that does bear fruit he prunes so that it will be even more fruitful. You are already clean because of the word I have spoken to you. Remain in me, and I will remain in you. No branch can bear fruit by itself; it must remain in the vine. Neither can you bear fruit unless you remain in me” (John 15:1-4).
If the Body of Christ is merely an abstract concept, then why all the emphasis on keeping the traditions of the Church and listening to and obeying what the Church says? People guided by the Holy Spirit were to take over Apostolic responsibilities and leadership (John 16:13). Even before the Pentecost, in Acts 1, the Apostles drew lots to choose Mathias as replacement for Judas. Already we see the Church passing along an office from one person (in this case, an apostate traitor who left) to that person’s successor.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously, and there is plenty of historical evidence to support this.
The evidence of an outgrowing structure (like a vine and its branches … bearing fruit) rooted in Christ, built upon Christ the King’s steward the Rock, and further built upon the other Apostles, and those they appointed under them, and ultimately the laity, is clear from reading the New Testament. Just as Yahweh called forth the nation of Israel, so He called forth from all nations people to be his body:
“And in the church God has appointed first of all apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, also those having gifts of healing, those able to help others, those with gifts of administration, and those speaking in different kinds of tongues. Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? Do all have gifts of healing? Do all speak in tongues ? Do all interpret? But eagerly desire the greater gifts. And now I will show you the most excellent way.” (1 Corinthians 12:28-29).
Read all of 1 Corinthians 12. Notice how each person has a different, unique role within the Church. Even the least of the body is essential to the body (1 Cor. 12:21-23). All parts of the body, that is, all members are the Church, are united, for “God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it” (1 Cor. 12:24-26).
Indeed, the Church is one body. That body is the Body of Christ. And division is not according to the Bible.
Martin Luther’s split with the Catholic Church, regardless of the abuses of power of Church leadership, regardless of anything, is not Scriptural. In fact, it is a rebellion against God Himself: “
In fact, Martin Luther used the argument from 1 Peter 2:5-9, that all Christians are a priesthood of believers and do not need a clergy. They have authority in themselves and the Bible (which of course, had not come into existence when Jesus founded the Church; nowhere does Jesus mention it and although he quotes from it, nowhere is it the final authority; the final authority on matters is the Church Christ founded) and need nothing more.
But was Luther’s “restoration” of the true Church (and how often do we hear this among Protestants - every time they wish to “restore the true Church” they SPLIT UP… but division is anti-biblical) was only a fracturation, followed quickly by others (among them the Anabaptists).
I’ll let you judge based on the historical and Scriptural evidence whether Luther was working with the Holy Spirit: http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ404.HTM
But his rebellion was not just about doctrine, it was ultimately against Church authority, as most of his famous (and infamous) Ninety-Five Theses indicated. Keep in mind that Martin Luther ALTERED Romans by putting the word “ALONE” after “Justified by faith.” He freely admits that he did this, saying: “You tell me what a great fuss the Papists are making because the word 'alone' is not in the text of Paul. If your Papist makes such an unnecessary row about the word 'alone' say right out to him, 'Dr. Martin Luther will have it so,' and say, 'Papists and asses are one and the same thing.' I will have it so, and I order it to be so, and my will is reason enough. I know very well the word 'alone' is not in the Latin or Greek text, and it was not necessary for the Papists to teach me that. It is true those letters are not in it, which letters the jackasses look at as a cow stares at a new gate. It shall remain in my New Testament, and if all the Popish donkeys were to get mad and beside themselves they will not get it out." (quoted in John Stoddard's Rebuilding a Lost Faith, Tan Books, Rockford, IL, USA)
His hatred of Moses, the Jews, and anyone who disagreed with “his” theology, as well as his desire to throw out various parts of Scripture (Hebrews, James, Revelation, Esther, among others; he did manage to throw out the deuterocanonical books, or “apocrypha” as they are know in the Protestant world, but were part of the Septuagint, the Old Testament of Jesus’ time; this will all be elaborated upon in Chapter III., my essay about the Bible; but it’s easy to say “Sola Scriptura” when YOU decide what Scriptura you want to follow and that you wish to reject!), shows he had a lot of “issues” that go beyond the issue of how one is justified before God. (This will be covered in my essay on salvation, Chapter IV.)
His rebellion against the God-ordained structure of the Church (1 Corinthians 12) is reminiscent of Korah’s rebellion back in Numbers 16. The same arguments were used. Luther claimed all believers were the same, all priests, that there were no distinctions between believers (for all his preaching about “Sola Scriptura” Luther chose to disregard most Scripture, in this case, 1 Corinthians 12, if it didn’t go along with his theology; the trend of trying to make God into one’s own image through twisting of Scripture was brought up in 2 Peter 3, and would later be the way Protestant “reformers” would continually arise and splinter off from the Rock upon which Jesus founded His Church); Korah led an uprising against Moses and Aaron, whom Yahweh had appointed to head the holy nation of Israel, objecting, “You have gone too far! The whole community is holy, every one of them, and the LORD is with them. Why then do you set yourselves above the LORD's assembly?” (Numbers 16:3)
Korah did not believe that Moses and Aaron had received their authority to rule from God. Korah took God’s statement, “You shall be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exodus 19:6), and used it to rebel against not only God’s appointed leaders, Aaron and Moses, but God Himself.
In his book, Incense and Insurrection, Protestant pastor Judson Cornwall makes the analogy of constant Protestant fracturation, which Martin Luther began, to this Old Testament event: “Korah said, in effect, ‘God said that we are equal, and yet we are submitted to Moses and Aaron and they’re lording it over us’” (p. 17).
Protestants always argue Luther was justified to split from the Catholic Church due to abuses in ecclesiastical power during that era. Corwell challenges those (whether it be Luther, Calvin, or modern Protestant “defectors”) who contend that challenges to leadership are due to vital issues being mishandled by church leaders, by replying: “Generally, the small measure of principle that is claimed as an issue is little more than a smokescreen to cover action … [I]n seeking to dethrone the earthly leaders of the Church, we risk rising up against God and sharing Korah’s fate… Is there any issue large enough to justify splitting the Church over?” (p. 55-56).
Korah’s fate, for rebelling against God and His earthly leaders was to have the earth split open and swallow him and his followers up. In a very similar way, we see that happening within Protestantism in a very figurative, yet equally destructive way. As soon as the would-be “reformers” split from the Rock of Truth found in Christ’s Church and His appointed leaders, they just kept on splitting, and splitting, and splitting… all the while claiming to be representing the “real Truth” of God.
Former Evangelical Protestant missionaries Marty and Kristine Franklin (whose mission it was to “bring Catholics to Christ” in Guatemala) were charged with the mission to bring the truth of the Bible to the Guatemalan people, but ultimately their faith began to falter when they “observed many of our nondenominational missionary friends urging people to find a ‘Bible-believing Church’ where Scripture was taught accurately. This was especially the case after a large [interdenominational] crusade in which hundreds came forward to ‘get saved.’ The interesting thing was that if the missionaries were Pentecostals or Charismatics, what they meant by a ‘Bible-believing’ Church was a ‘Spirit-filled’ Church with lively music and overt expressions of the sign gifts. If the missionaries were Baptist or Fundamentalists of another kind, what they meant by ‘Bible-believing’ was a non-Pentecostal Church with heavy emphasis on exegetical preaching and personal Bible study (assuming of course that the people in question could read [Guatemala’s literacy rate is only fifty-percent]). In our own dealings with people, we told them to choose a Church in which they were comfortable. It was the best we could honestly suggest, because every single Church claimed to teach God’s truth straight out of the Bible. Who were we to say that one was better or truer or more Bible-believing than another?” (excerpt from Surprised by Truth 2, Sophia Institute Press, 2000).
Take into account the doctrinal yet “equally Biblical” contradictory doctrines, such as baptism (some baptize infants, some do not), and you see, where is the truth to be found if it’s found in the Bible?
David W. Bercot wrote in his book, Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding Scripture (Scroll Publishing Co., 1992) that it is arrogance to reject the early Church Fathers’ interpretations of the Bible in favor of our own modern-day interpretations: “Your quest is to find out how the primitive Church in general understood the New Testament. In other words, what was the ‘course of performance’ of the first generations of Christians? After you have read enough of their works to have a good feel for their culture, mindset, and overall Christian beliefs, go back and re-read the New Testament. Read it through their pattern of thinking. See what new things you will discover. When you’re through, you’re free to go back and pick up all of your former beliefs, if you like. But perhaps you never will” (p. 165-166). He talked of great Church fathers like Polycarp (A.D.69-155), a disciple of John the Apostle himself. This man, like so many other early Christian leaders, refused to renounce Jesus Christ, and became a martyr for the faith. Men willing to die for the teachings of the Apostles, Bercot argues, would not be likely to corrupt those teachings knowingly.
Ireneaus, disciple of Polycarp, writes of Polycarp: “Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (Against the Heretics, 3:3:4).
The thing that one will find when reading the writings of the early Church is that indeed, they were completely CATHOLIC in their theology!
Jeff Childers, who left the Church of Christ denomination for the Catholic Church after careful study of the Bible and Church history, writes in his essay, From the Church of Christ to Christ’s Church: “The more I learned about the early Church, the more it seemed to be the early Catholic Church. Among the earliest Christian writers, Catholic concepts are discussed, defended, and taught as commonly accepted teachings that had come directly from Christ and the Apostles. The same men who sat at the Apostles’ feet, who became martyrs for love of their Savior (and their protégés and others in the first several centuries after Christ), accepted Catholic teachings without question and expounded on them using Scripture as well as Apostolic Tradition as their authority: doctrines such as a three-tiered priestly hierarchy that was conferred by the laying on of hands in Ordination (Cf. 1 Tim.. 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6); apostolic succession (Cf. Acts 1:15-26; 2 Tim. 2:2); the authoritative oral Tradition (Cf. Luke 1:1-4; 1. Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15); the teaching infallibility of the Catholic Church (Cf. Luke 10:16, 18:18; Matt. 28:19-20); the primacy of Peter among the Apostles (and the primacy of his successor, the Bishop of Rome) (Cf. Matt. 16:18-19; Luke 22:31-32; John 21:15-19); the priestly role of Christian elders (James 5:13-15); the inspiration of the so-called “Apocrypha” [this will be discussed in the next chapter on the Bible]; Mary’s special role in Christ’s mission as Messiah and in God’s overall plan of salvation (Luke 1:26-56; Rev. 12:1-18); Baptism by pouring rather than by immersion; infant baptism (Acts 16:30-33; Colossians 2:11-13); the Communion of Saints (Rom. 12:3-8; 1 Cor. 12:12-31; Eph. 3:13; Heb. 11:1-39, 12:1-2); veneration of Mary and the saints and asking for their intercession in Heaven (1 Thess. 5:11, 14-15; Jos 5:14; Dan 8:17; Rev. 2:10; 8:3-4; Jer 15:1; 2 Tim 4:8, Jas 1:12, 1 Pet 5:4); and the Real Presence in the Eucharist [see my first essay on the Eucharist]” (excerpt from Surprised by Truth 2, Sophia Institute Press, 2000, p.35-36).
Many converts from pagan religions did try to hold on to their old traditions, but contrary to what Fundamentalists want you to believe, the Church did not change her teachings to accommodate them. “Rather, she struggled faithfully to whip them into shape. Constantine, far from being an unorthodox innovator, was indispensable (in A.D. 325) in calling the first ecumenical council to combat false teachings.” (Ibid)
Upholding Tradition and staying united with the physical, literal Church, insures keeping in line with orthodox Christian Truth. The Christian fathers are unanimous on this, and the biblical support is overwhelming.
Pope Clement I: “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [A.D. 80]).
“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Ibid, 1, 58-59, 63 [A.D. 80]).
Hegessippus (early Christian theologian, writer, historian): “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, who was John the Apostle’s disciple and successor from Ephesus): “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).
“But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul-that church which has the tradition and the faith with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world. And it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (ibid., 3:3:2).
“Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?” (ibid., 3:4:1).
“[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church-those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth” (ibid., 4:26:2).
“The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere” (ibid., 4:33:8).
Tertullian (born circa A.D. 160, theologian from Carthage, convert from paganism to Christianity circa A.D. 197): “[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).
“[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches-those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood” (ibid., 21).
“But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men-a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter” (ibid., 32).
The references throughout the centuries are too numerous to include here. These are just a handful of some of the earliest ones.
Just as nowadays, where there are so many cults and “warring factions” among people professing to know the truth, so was it during Jesus’ time (Acts 5:35-39), and Jesus even had prophesied that it would continue to be so for generations to come (Matthew 7:15; Mark 13:22; 2 Peter 2:1; 1 John 4:1) The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.
Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).
For the early Fathers, “the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. Indeed, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’” (ibid.).
Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).
The logic and necessity of a visible, structured Church, established and empowered by Jesus Christ, is just too overwhelming to ignore.
Peter showed himself already to be the head of the Church, as Christ ordained, emboldened by Christ’s assigning him a special role among the Apostles, His edification of Peter after the Resurrection, and forgiveness of Peter’s sins. Peter always mentioned first, as foremost apostle (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13; Lk 9:32); Peter speaks for the apostles (Mt 18:21; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69); After the Pentecost, it was Peter who first preached (Acts 2:14-40); Peter worked first healing (Acts 3:6-7); Gentiles to be baptized revealed to Peter (Acts 10:46-48). In Acts 10 shows again, Cornelius the centurion was told by the angel to send men to PETER. Also, Peter is visited by an angel and it is revealed to him by God that the old kosher laws were no longer valid, and how to deal with the Gentiles who come into the Faith. Many fundamentalists will show other instances where Peter is in disagreement with Paul, or James is shown in a leadership role on different councils, but simply because Paul and Peter disagreed on some issues, that does not somehow usurp Peter’s authority as it is demonstrated in the Scriptures and in historical Tradition.
Fundamentalists would like one to believe that Peter was never in Rome, Peter was married and so couldn’t be a celibate pope. Therefore the papacy is unscriptural. I think the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. Celibacy has nothing to do with the papacy. It is a discipline modeled after the celibacy of Christ (whom priests, as all believers, are called to imitate), after Scriptural suggestion (Matthew 19:12; 1 Cor. 7:7-8, 32-35), but also, “From the earliest period the Church was personified and conceived of by her disciples as the Virgin Bride and as the pure Body of Christ, or again as the Virgin Mother (parthenos meter), and it was plainly fitting that this virgin Church should be served by a virgin priesthood.” (Quote from: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03481a.htm). There are married priests in the Eastern Catholic rites, as well as in the Latin tradition - those who were married already before becoming Catholic, and wished to become ordained as Catholic priests.
The location of Rome has little to do with Peter’s See, other than that Peter was there. He writes in his epistles that he is in Babylon (a code word for Rome) because the Church was illegal in those days, and it would have been dangerous, had the letters been intercepted by Roman authorities, for them to know where Peter was. But there is ample evidence that Peter, like Paul, was in Rome, as those whom he ordained remained Bishops of Rome, in Peter’s See. Ireneaus, whom I quoted earlier wrote: “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Clement I was ordained in Rome in Peter’s See, as Tertullian commented in an epistle I quoted earlier.
From about 92-101, Clement I of Rome was acknowledged as the Bishop of Rome, in the See of Peter, third in succession from Peter. It is clear from his Epistle to the Corinthians that belief in apostolic succession was already accepted: “Our Apostles… gave instructions, so that when these bishops should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry.” Ignatius of Antioch wrote in his Epistle to the Philadelphians in A.D. 98 (shortly before his martyrdom at the hands of the Romans), that in each city, “there is one bishop, along with the presbytery and the deacons.” Ignatius of Antioch, like Polycarp, was a student of John the Apostle, and even he wrote and spoke of the primacy of the bishop of Rome, Peter’s successor, who presides over “the presidency of love.”
When there was dissention among churches, the See of Peter, the Bishop of Rome, was called to settle disputes as the undisputed Vicar of Christ’s Church. Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine (born A.D. 260, died before A.D. 341) comments: “And when a dissension arose about these said people [the Montanists], the brethren in Gaul once more . . . [sent letters] to the brethren in Asia and Phrygia and, moreover to Eleutherius, who was then [A.D. 175] bishop of the Romans, negotiating for the peace of the churches" (Eusebius, Church History 5:3:4 [A.D. 312])
“And the same martyrs too commended Irenaeus, already at that time [A.D. 175] a presbyter of the community of Lyons, to the said bishop of Rome, rendering abundant testimony to the man, as the following expressions show: ‘Once more and always we pray that you may rejoice in God, Pope Eleutherius. This letter we have charged our brother and companion Irenaeus to convey to you, and we beg you to receive him as zealous for the covenant of Christ’” (ibid., 5:4:1-2).
In Clement I’s own Epistle to the Corinthians, one of the earliest written records of papal authority being exercised in the early Church written in A.D. 97, Clement dealt with the internal affairs of that church, and there is no hint in his tone that Clement believed he was overstepping his authority to dictate such things, and the Corinthians accepted Clement’s word as the final authority. Bear in mind, this is the same Corinthian church the Apostle Paul himself founded. This church was also near where the Apostle John had lived. If the ruling power of “the keys” which Christ bestowed to Peter had not been recognized, why would the Church in Corinth ever listen to what the Bishop of Rome had to say?
Therefore, it is a real stretch to understand any other concept of what “the Church” is and was meant to be, outside of the literal, Bible, Catholic teaching, as Jesus Christ Himself passed on to His Apostles. The Church is a family, the Body of Christ, the Bride of Christ, and a “spiritual house.” In fact, the New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5-6, Rev. 21:14).
In 1 Peter 2:2-5 : “you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.”
A spiritual house of which Christ is the cornerstone (Matthew 21:42), we are being built upon the "Kepha" (Christ is piling us/building us) - it is Jesus who is taking us and using us to build his Church....
There is both physical and spiritual imagery in the words of Peter and Jesus.
I like the imagery of Jesus building us into a big "Church" -- we are individual rocks. That alone means we're sturdy yet as we are piled on top of each other, we built walls, we build a ceiling... we build a sturdy, immense structure... while in the hands of the Lord who is building us.
Always we are in each others hands. We are edifying each other in the spiritual/figurative and literal senses.
The above 1 Peter verse is very powerful because it shows us that we're all connected, we all depend on each other and we strengthen each other. But not in just a spiritual way. In a very REAL way.
God “rocks”!!!!
