Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy

Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

First Rebuttal Statement

Moses Flores

As promised in my opening statement I will now deal with the interpretation of the Matthew 16:18-19 according to the Early Fathers. As mentioned in the Sola Scriptura debate, the “tradition” of the Church was infallibly defined as the “unanimous consent of the Fathers”. Were the Fathers “unanimous” in their understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 as infallibly interpreted in Vatican I in 1870? It is my contention that they were not. It is my contention that at least three categories of interpretations existed among the Early Fathers that ran in both the Eastern and Western traditions. These three interpretations are as follows: 1) Peter as the Rock (non-Pro-Papal) 2) Peter’s Confession/Faith as the Rock 3) Christ as the Rock.

According to my readings of the thirty three Fathers on this Scripture, 4 of them (Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Firmilian) interpret Peter as the Rock but in various senses. For instance, in his word “On Modesty”, Tertullian says,

If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church, to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, [1] conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter? “On thee,” He says, “will I build My Church;” and, “I will give to thee the keys,” not to the Church; and, “Whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound,” not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so withal the result teaches. [2] In (Peter) himself the Church was reared; that is, through (Peter) himself; (Peter) himself essayed the key; you see what (key): “Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears: Jesus the Nazarene, a man destined by God for you,” and so forth. (Peter) himself, therefore, was the first to unbar, in Christ’s baptism, the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which (kingdom) are “loosed” the sins that were beforetime “bound;” and those which have not been “loosed” are “bound,” in accordance with true salvation; and Ananias he “bound” with the bond of death, and the weak in his feet he “absolved” from his defect of health. Moreover, in that dispute about the observance or non-observance of the Law, [3]Peter was the first of all to be endued with the Spirit, and, after making preface touching the calling of the nations, to say, “And now why are ye tempting the Lord, concerning the imposition upon the brethren of a yoke which neither we nor our fathers were able to support? But however, through the grace of Jesus we believe that we shall be saved in the same way as they.” This sentence both “loosed” those parts of the law which were abandoned, and “bound” those which were reserved. Hence the power of loosing and of binding committed to Peter had nothing to do with the capital sins of believers; and if the Lord had given him a precept that he must grant pardon to a brother sinning against him even “seventy times sevenfold,” of course He would have commanded him to “bind”—that is, to “retain” —nothing subsequently, unless perchance such (sins) as one may have committed against the Lord, not against a brother. For the forgiveness of (sins) committed in the case of a man is a prejudgment against the remission of sins against God… And accordingly “the Church,” it is true, will forgive sins: but (it will be) the Church of the Spirit, by means of a spiritual man; not the Church which consists of a number of bishops. [4]For the right and arbitrament is the Lord’s, not the servant’s; God’s Himself, not the priest’s. [1]

Several things become apparent here. In [1] Tertullian’s denies any sort of Petrine succession. He understands the promise given to Peter is to Peter alone. He explicitly rejects anybody else laying hold to Peter’s unique office as an apostle and as the “Rock” of the Church. In [2] and [3] he further explains why no one is able to stand in the unique office of Peter. In [2] Tertullian says that it was Peter who first “loosened” the sins of the Jews, that is opened the way of salvation by first preaching the Gospel (note the reference to Acts 2:22). In [3] the other instance of Peter’s unique position is that he was the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (note the reference to Acts 15 giving his testimony to the Jerusalem Council ). Now, according to the Catholic Church, the “keys” are the Churches power to absolves sins, pronounce doctrinal judgments, and make disciplinary decisions in the Church (CCC ¶553). Tertullian does NOT even mention these powers to Peter at all concerning the “keys”. Rather, he understands the “binding and loosing” as I quoted from James McCarthy as being the first among equals to allow the Jews and the Gentiles into the Church through the preaching of the Gospel[2]. And finally, that it may be abundantly clear that Tertullian did not understand this Petrine passage to give any power to priest at all to absolve sins, he says it is God’s prerogative, not the priest who is but a servant, to forgive sins [4].

Now, it is enough to quote Tertullian’s understanding to undermine 1) the “unanimous consent of the Fathers” as the “tradition” since what is stated as the Catholic Tradition today does not agree with Tertullian’s assessment of Matthew 16:18-19. 2) Secondly, we see that the infallible pronouncement of Vatican I as having the unanimous support of the Fathers is overturned. I do not want to take up more space quoting from those other Fathers who interpreted Peter as the Rock. I will only comment on them in passing and footnote a link to their relevant works.

Origen in Commentary on Matthew[3] says that Peter is the Rock but in the sense that is a representative of all true believers. He says, “…We become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘You are Peter,’ etc.” He further says, “But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect?” (Book XII: 10,11).

Cyprian says Peter is the Rock but only as a first among equals and that the “foundation of the Church” rests upon the unity of the Bishops, not Peter alone. Rather, an “equal power” is given to all the apostles when Christ tells them “As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained; " (On the unity of the Church, sec. 4[4]).

Last among those who interpreted Peter as the Rock is Firmilian. He also noted that Peter is the Rock as the representative of all the apostles and actually denied that the Bishop of Rome is the sole successor of Peter. Rather, all legitimate bishops possess the “chair of Peter.” (see sections 17-18)[5]. He actually writes this against Pope Stephen not agreeing with him and pointing out his “error”. Hardly a proper action for a Bishop of Caesarea to do against “the Vicar of Christ on Earth”.

Space is fleeting so I will be brief in these next two categorical interpretations of the Fathers.

The second category of Peter’s Confession/Faith as the Rock is supported by fifteen of the thirty studied Fathers. These include Ambrose, Hilary of Poitiers, John Cassian, Palladus of Helenopolis, Pual of Emesa, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Athanasius, Didymus the blind, Theodore of Cyr, Cyril of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Epiphanius, Basil of Seleucia and Pope Gregory the Great[6]. As a representative sample of these Fathers, I will quote from Hilary of Poitiers who said in his work “On the Trinity”,

A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature, is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles. If this be a mere title, to which adoption is His only claim; if He be not the Son in virtue of having proceeded forth from God, whence, I ask, was it that the blessed Simon Bar-Jona confessed to Him, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God?... This faith it is which is the foundation of the Church; through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. This faith is the Father's gift by revelation… This is the Father's revelation, this the foundation of the Church, this the assurance of her permanence. Hence has she the keys of the kingdom of heaven, hence judgment in heaven and judgment on earth. Through revelation Peter learned the mystery hidden from the beginning of the world, proclaimed the faith, published the Divine nature, confessed the Son of God. He who would deny all this truth and confess Christ a creature, must first deny the apostleship of Peter, his faith, his blessedness, his episcopate, his martyrdom. And when he has done all this, he must learn that he has severed himself from Christ; for it was by confessing Him that Peter won these glories.” (Book VI, 36,37)[7]

Also,

“Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, You are the Son of the living God . On it we can base an answer to every objection with which perverted ingenuity or embittered treachery may assail the truth.” (Book II, 23)[8]

There is no mistaking that Hilary is saying that the “foundation of the Church” is the faith which Peter confessed and not the person of Peter. As much as possible, I have attempted to provide links to quotes of these Fathers who held to this form of interpretation of “the Rock” in Matthew 16:18-19.

Finally, there are those Fathers who held that “the Rock” upon which the Church would be built was the person of Jesus Christ. Some of these Fathers make reference to I Cor. 10:4; 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 in which Christ is referred to as the “sole foundation” or “rock” and even “chief cornerstone”. These Fathers include Eusebius, Augustine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Cassiodorus, Maximus of Turin, Isidore of Seville, Bede (Doctor of the Church), James of Nisbis, Aphrates, Ephrem the Syrian, Asterius, Isidore of Pelusium, John of Damascus (who also believed Peter’s faith was the Rock).

As a representative of this group, I shall quote from Augustine’s commentary on the Gospel of John (Tractate 124.5) in which he says,

So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, "I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven," he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by various temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falls not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter[Petros], but Peter[Petra] from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, "On this rock will I build my Church," because Peter had said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church. This Church, accordingly, which Peter represented, so long as it lives amidst evil, by loving and following Christ is delivered from evil[9].

Noting several clear things from Augustine, first, he believes that Peter is a representative of universal Church (not merely the Roman Church – remember that Catholic was understood as “universal” then and not merely the first “denominations” within Christendom of the Eastern and Western Churches). Second, we take note of Augustine’s handling of Peter (Petros) and Rock (Petra). Augustine understands Petra linguistically prior to Petros. That is, it is the Peter’s name (like our “Rocky”) which comes from Petra or Rock. In this way, Peter is only a kind of rock because of his derivation from the Rock, who is Jesus Christ. Thus, he says, since Peter represented all the believing Church, that the entire Church is in Christ as Peter derived and was in the Rock.

I only wish that I could quote from all of these fathers but such a work is beyond the scope of this rebuttal. William Webster has an excellent work on this subject titled “The Matthew 16 Controversy” that deals with each of these Fathers in an exhaustive way.

Needless to say, it would appear that my understanding of Matthew 16:18-19 is in line with what the Early Church Fathers taught about Peter and the interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19. So far, none of these Fathers quoted understands anything of Papal Infallibility or of the Primacy of Peter over the entire Church for absolving sins, disciplinary measures or doctrinal judgments. According to Trent and Vatican I. no one is to interpret the Holy Scriptures contrary to the sense of the Roman Catholic Church or contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers. These quotes provided by the Fathers prove that 1) there was no unanimous consent regarding the interpretation of this passage and 2) that the Rock was not Peter or His successors after him presiding over the Church. Rather, we see them understanding Peter as representing all bishops or all believers and the Rock upon which the Church is built as the content of Peter’s faith, his confession, or Christ as the Rock. God bless.