The Papacy: "To be, or not to be, that is the question!"

Papal Tiara

Question: What did Jesus mean when he said: Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah ... 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.”(Matthew 16:16-20 NIV). My Catholic friends use this to "prove" that only the Roman Catholics are in the true Church. What shall I say?


Answer:Two key passages in understanding the nature of the Church are found in Matthew and 1 Timothy so let us take a look at them beginning with Matthew which reads—

Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, 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 ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah. (Matthew 16:16-20 NIV)

One cannot help but be struck by the exclusivity of this passage. The confessional Peter is most definitely the rock upon which Christ said he would build his Church. I say, “the confessional Peter” for it stand to reason that if Peter would have answered differently, then there is no way this passage could make sense. Peter’s confession does not in any way deduct from the fact that Peter is the Rock upon which Christ would build His Church—as a matter of fact it only strengthens it.

Also I think it is significant that Christ does not only protect His Church from the unseen forces of evil but laden within the promise is the assurance of earthly protection as well. That is to say that the Church is here to stay and that it will remain faithful to the founding principles on which it was established. This was not just a cursory power conferred, either. Peter’s word was final. He was in fact the prime minister of this new kingdom.

And, now the verses from 1 Timothy—

Although I hope to come to you soon, I am writing you these instructions so that, if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. (1 Timothy 3:14-15 NIV)

First of all we see that Peter was given a personal intuitive revelation that Jesus was the Messiah, the Son of the living God—not something that Peter figured out on his own. Secondly, Christ was to build the Church, not Peter. Peter was only a foundational stone—and, incidentally, not the only one, either, according to Ephesians 2:19-22, which reads—

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

In any event, Peter’s uniqueness does not lie in the fact that He is a stone on which Christ was to be build His Church, but rather in the uniqueness of possessing the Keys as His Prime Minister designate. Thus, we can say, thirdly, Peter at the same time was designed as Christ’s future vicar, or Prime Minister with authority (i.e., the keys to the kingdom) to act on Christ’s behalf at an appointed time in line with the symbolism of Isaiah 22 in which Eliakim was to replace Shebna as the viceroy under Hezekiah.

I say this because no educated Jew would interpret these words any differently since the precedence had already been established firmly in Old Testament history. This of course being the “conferring of the keys” symbolism narrative found in Isaiah 22 in which Eliakim was to replace Shebna as the viceroy under King Hezekiah.

Also I think it is significant that Christ does not only protect His Church from the unseen forces of evil but laden within the promise is the assurance of earthly protection as well. That is to say that the Church is here to stay and that it will remain faithful to the founding principles on which it was established. So, was not just a cursory power conferred, either. Peter’s word was final. He was in fact the prime minister of this new kingdom and the confessional Rock on which the Church was built—that is not to say that there were not other foundational stones as we have noticed (Ephesians 2:19-22).

However, the question remains, can anyone deny that Peter’s subsequent role in the formation of the Church was not singularly unique? It is obvious that Peter was the spokesman for the primitive Church and, as in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) his pronouncements were only affirmed, never superseded. It may be argued by some that Peter and Paul disagreed doctrinally over the role of the Gentiles in the Church; however, Peter had no problem with the doctrine—his problem was with its social implementation. Paul, it should be noted, as much as admitted that Peter was on the right track when he himself had Timothy circumcised:

Paul came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was Jewish and a believer but whose father was a Greek. The believers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. (Acts 16:1-3)

So, the so-called famous feud between Paul and Peter was not a doctrinal issue at all, it was rather a matter of implementation. Here’s the story:

11 When Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. 12 For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13 The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.

14 When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas in front of them all, “You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs? (Galatians 2:11-14 (NIV)

Therefore it seem obvious to the unbiased exegete that this was not a doctrinal dispute at all, but rather one of conduct. And, if Paul’s subsequent action by having Timothy circumcised is any clue it seems as if Peter not Paul won the day. In any event, Peter certainly did not hold a grudge for he readily admitted that Paul’s epistles were inspired and as such to be considered part of Holy Scripture (2 Peter 3:16).

According to “Fish Eaters” a Catholic internet website—

Now obviously Christ re-named Simon "Peter" in response to Simon's confession of faith in Christ the Rock, the Foundation Stone, so the Protestant assertion that "the rock" was "Peter's faith" has some merit in a circuitous way (and you will read early Church Fathers speaking of the rock of Peter's confession), and of course, Cephas the rock derives his authority from and must never contradict the Rock Who is Christ; but in addition to the exegesis above, it simply can't be ignored that Peter was re-named Kepha (Rock!) and exercised authority among the apostles: he was always named first when the apostles were listed (Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) -- sometimes it was only "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32); he was the apostles' spokesman (Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:69, Acts 4:1-13, Acts 2:37-41, Acts 5:15); he exhorted the other bishops (1 Peter 5:1); he was there at the most important moments (Matthew 14:28-32, Matthew 17:24, Mark 10:28); he was the first to proclaim Christ's divinity (Matthew 16:16); he was the first to preach the Gospel after Pentecost (Acts 2:14-40), thus starting the whole "Church era"; he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7); he had the revelation that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48); he alone was told by Christ after His resurrection to "Feed My lambs; feed My sheep" (John 21:15-17) and strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:31-32).

Furthermore, contrary to common opinion, Peter is mentioned more in the New Testament than Paul. Peter also wrote a considerable amount of the New Testament content, particularly if we consider that Peter most likely used Mark as his amanuensis (i.e., secretary)—as attested by the earliest authorities—who in turn compiled the oral tradition of Peter to comprise the Gospel of Mark. That being the case, which I believe it is, then Peter wrote more of the New Testament than Paul. It must also be observed in this regards—i.e., that of the primacy, that Peter certainly presented himself in the leadership role.

Another interesting fact is that in all the listings of the Twelve Apostles Peter is mentioned first and Judas last.

Naturally, the logical extension is that Peter has a successor, who also had a successor, and so-on. However, scripture does not say that, and the practice is based not on scripture but rather on tradition. Also, it would seem rather strange for a prime minister to appoint another prime minister so Peter most probably did not appoint his own successor. How then can apostolic succession be defended. I suppose on the bases of the magisterium of the Church or during a conclave called by the Church to do just that and rely on the Holy Spirit to guide them in the decision. We have no precedence in appointing a successor to Peter in scripture (How could we since he was dead yet!); however, we do have the record of how Judas’ vacant bishopric was filled (Acts 1:12-26; cf. Psalm 109:8) because we are told that they nominated Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias and then prayed and drew lots to see which one God wanted. Matthias, as you know, was chosen. Interestingly, the Coptic Pope is chosen even today by this same method—and, to make it fair, the delegates choose a 12 year old boy to draw the lots.

The Bishop of Rome, allegedly Peter’s successor has been chosen in a variety of ways, much to varied to detail now, but needless to say there is a fairly good record of each name and some with extended histories—some good, some bad.

The bottom-line, I feel, is that the spirit of Jude 1:3 be kept and that we, therefore, must earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints. Through the years that pristine faith has endured; however, like the frescoes on the ceiling of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome the message has become smutted by the passage of time with inner-Church bickering—Protestant, Orthodox and Catholic alike, and it must be restored to its original beauty. Be that as it may, however, I am not one to tolerated calling the Catholic Church the "Whore of Babylon, the Mother of Harlots (Revelation 17)"; nor do I feel that the pope is the Anti-Christ. Christ was very tolerant in matters like these as is illustration among other times that he once said to his disciples,

“I am the good shepherd; I know my sheep and my sheep know me—just as the Father knows me and I know the Father—and I lay down my life for the sheep. I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd. The reason my Father loves me is that I lay down my life—only to take it up again. No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This command I received from my Father." (John 10:14-18)

Then, of course, there is the pleading narrative in John 17:20-26 where Jesus prays:

“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—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

“Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

“Righteous Father, though the world does not know you, I know you, and they know that you have sent me. I have made you known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.”

This, I feel is the proper attitude to take. Whatever the outcome is, only time will tell.

Take Care!
JimR /