The Biblical Foundations of The Papacy
(Part 5)
Paul Newcombe
Common Objections Raised Against The Catholic Interpretation of Scripture
(1). The nouns in Matthew 16:17-18 address Peter in the second person but refer to the rock in the third person; therefore the rock is something other than Peter. Peter is not the rock.
Firstly, grammatically nouns do not have person, only pronouns have person. Robert Sungenis explains further:
The pronouns, “I,” “you,” and “he” are first, second and third person, respectively. Nouns, on the other hand, have number, gender and case but not person. Hence, it is not correct to say that “rock,” which MacKenzie and Gerstner have claimed is a “third person” noun, cannot be matched up with the second person pronoun “you” from the phrase “you are Peter” in Matthew 16:18. One cannot claim a dysjunction between “you” and “rock” based on person since technically speaking no such comparison is grammatically legitimate.[1]
Secondly, if this Protestant argument were true, the rules would also need to be applied to “I” and “church” in Jesus’ statement “I will build my church” since the former is in the first person and the latter would be a third person. No Protestant seeking to empty this passage of petrine authority would also agree to prohibiting Christ as the builder of his own Church.
(2). The Book of Revelation (3:7) indicates that Jesus holds the keys of the kingdom; therefore Peter cannot be the possessor of the keys and, furthermore, he cannot thus posses the universal teaching authority represented by the keys. This authority belongs to Jesus alone.
The Catholic faith does not strip Jesus of his prerogatives as the founder of the Christian Church when noting that he delegates the keys of the kingdom to Peter. Butler explains:
The Lord Jesus Christ ultimately holds the authority of all keys and has delegated a certain authority of these keys to Peter on earth. A king never relinquishes his authority to hold the keys, but he may delegate his authority to whomever he pleases. They then both hold the authority of the keys, one by right, the other by delegation.[2]
The book of Revelation displays exactly what one would expect. Just as was the case in the Davidic monarchy, the King retains his supreme authority while simultaneously entrusting it to the administration of his prime minister who is assigned to coordinate all the obligations of the royal house.
(3). Jesus could not be calling Peter to a special teaching office within his Church in Matthew 16:17-19 because four verses later he rebukes Peter for suggesting that the crucifixion should not take place — “Get behind me Satan: you are an offense to me: for these thoughts of yours are man’s, not God’s” (Matthew 16:23). Peter’s “office” is obviously not an infallible one.
Firstly, Peter is here expressing his personal opinion — that the handing over of Christ to his enemies (the Sanhedrin) for abuse and eventually his own murder is a horrendous concept that he privately wishes would not need to be inflicted upon Christ at all (Matthew 16:21-22). Is this a dogmatic pronouncement? Of course not. It’s a private opinion which contradicts the intentions of God. This is important to note because the Catholic Church has never taught that God protects the private opinions of popes from error. The Catholic definition of infallibility does not include private opinions but is extended exclusively to dogmatic pronouncements (on faith and morals) that are declared as binding upon the consciences of all Christian people. Popes can and do err in their private opinions — Peter is no different. His shock at discovering the fate of our Lord elicits an immediate reaction from Peter who desires to protect Jesus from his enemies. Matthew 16:17-19 does not fall into a context of defining official Christian dogma and therefore it does not impeach the concept of Peter’s office, or the infallibility attached to that office.
Secondly, when studying this passage, it is important to acknowledge another context — Peter’s ignorance of Jesus ultimate mission. Protestant biblical scholar F.F. Bruce (former Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism at the University of Manchester in England) recommends the following regarding Peter’s opinion — “Never, Lord, no such thing shall befall thee”:
And now, from the lips of Peter, Jesus heard what he recognized to be the same temptation again [as he had heard from Satan in the wilderness]. Peter, in effect, was trying to dissuade him from obeying his Father’s will. Peter had no idea that this was what he was doing; he was moved only by affectionate concern for his Master’s well-being and did not like to hear him utter such ominous words: “The Son of man must suffer many things and be rejected” (Mark 8:31). But he was, for the moment, playing the part of an adversary, however inadvertently, for as Jesus told him, “you are not on the side of God, but of men” (Mark 8:33).[3]
Peter’s knee-jerk response is elicited without a prior knowledge of the absolute necessity for Christ to die upon the cross for the salvation of man. Therefore, we cannot condemn him for his initial desire to protect Jesus, nor can we suggest this strips Peter of his later infallible authority contained in the office of prime minister.
(4). Matthew 18:15-18 tells us that the power to “bind” and “loose” is given to all the apostles. Therefore Peter cannot be singled out as having special authority.
In Matthew 18, Christ establishes what the Catholic Church insists upon — that the entire apostolic college has the power to bind and loose in union with Christ’s prime minister. The biblical difference between the apostles and Peter is the fact that the keys of the kingdom are given to Peter, but they are not mentioned by Christ when he addresses the apostles. This maintains the distinction between the Prime Minister (as the key holder) and his cabinet of ministers. The ministers only have valid authority insomuch as they remain connected to the keys of the kingdom held by Peter. As we have discussed previously, Peter is singled out by Christ as the shepherd of his entire flock (John 21:15-17) whereas here the apostles will also shepherd — yet most likely in their own local vicinities since they do not individually carry the keys of the kingdom. All have the authority to regulate the Church — the apostles in their local areas, Peter universally. This is the necessary teaching hierarchy which existed in the Davidic kingdom and now again exists in the world-wide kingdom established by Christ — the Church of God. “There is no indication that the authority of the keys was passed on to all believers, any more than the keys of David in the kingdom of Judah were passed on to every individual Jew”.[4]
(5). In the Council of Jerusalem, James uses an imperative mode (v. 14) when he orders the assembly to listen to his announcement. This makes it clear that James retains ultimate authority at the council, not Peter.
Robert Sungenis defuses this argument by informing us that:
The Greek work translated as “hear me” in Acts 15:14 is akouoo which is used hundreds of times in the New Testament. For example, the same word is used in two verses prior to Acts 15:12 in the Greek indicative mood and translated as “and heard [akouoo] Barnabas and Paul.” It is a word that, in itself, does not connote authority. Placing akouoo in the Greek imperative mood in Acts 15:14 can simply be understood as a request for those gathered to give their undivided attention to what will subsequently be spoken. The use of the imperative mood can be made strong or weak depending upon the context in which it is placed, but the use of the imperative does not necessarily denote any official authority of the one using the mood. The imperative mood of akouoo can be used for ANY desire of the one person seeking the attention of another. It can be used, for example, in a simple request such as, “Listen, did you hear that noise?” Or, it can be used in a stronger context such as: “Listen, do not do that again.” It can even be used of a subordinate who issues a request to a superior such as: “Listen, sir, to how I will do your bidding.” These different senses of the imperative mood are used throughout the New Testament (e.g., Acts 22:1 [“fathers, listen to my defense”]; James 2:5 [“hear me, my beloved brothers”]; Matt. 15:10 [“hear and understand”]. Again, these uses do not necessarily mean that the speaker is vested with authority over the person or group he is addressing; rather, it can be as simple as requesting their attention to the things he wishes to tell them. Hence, James’ use of the imperative mood in Acts 15:14 does not necessarily mean that James is speaking from a supreme authoritative position; rather, it is the perfectly normal means of speech one would employ to summon the attention of his hearers.[5]
(6). In Galatians 2 Paul’s list of church leaders names James first and Peter second. This implies a primacy of James over that of Peter.
This is the singular occasion in Scripture where Peter’s name does not head the list of apostles or Church leaders — therefore this argument, it must be noted, is being made from an isolated passage and ignores the abundance of occasions where Peter is named first. Many have suggested that the reason for the switch in order is to recognize the geographical location (Jerusalem). James presides as the bishop of Jerusalem and thus his name is given preference. Protestant commentator Charles John Ellicot explains further:
The way in which St. Paul speaks respectively of St. Peter and St. James is in strict accordance with the historical situation. When he is speaking of the general work of the Church (as in the last two verses) St. Peter is mentioned prominently; when the reference is to a public act of the Church of Jerusalem the precedence is given to St. James [who was the bishop of Jerusalem].”[6]
(7). In Galatians 2 Paul tells us that he opposed Peter — “But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he ate with the Gentiles; but when they came, he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.” (Galatians 2:11-12). Obviously, Paul did not regard Peter as infallible or recognize the supremacy of his position in the church.
This argument is, again, based upon an incorrect understanding of the Catholic definition of papal infallibility. The Catholic Church does not teach that Peter or any pope is perfect in his conduct, impeccable, or sinless. The Catholic Church’s definition of infallibility relates only to official teaching pronouncements, not to the popes’ personal morality or his consistency in living out what the Church believes. Every pope is a sinner who needs confession before God on a regular basis.
When popes have strayed from Catholic morality in the past, they have often been reproved by members of their own flock. Saint Catherine of Sienna is a classic example of a woman who chastised the pope in six letters and then did the same in a face-to-face meeting with the Holy Father in 1376 A.D. Her words pierced the pope’s heart—he promptly repented and abided by her council. Likewise, Paul’s rebuke of Peter was not a doctrinal issue, but a moral one. Leslie Rumble comments:
St. Peter was supreme head of the Church and infallible in his doctrinal teaching, but it does not follow that he would not be indiscreet in some of his administration. Now no doctrinal error was involved in this particular case. …To cease from doing a lawful thing for fear lest others be scandalized is not a matter of doctrine. It is a question of prudence or imprudence.[7]
(8). In 1 Peter 5:1 Peter refers to himself as a “fellow presbyter”. This demonstrates his own mindset with regard to his personal authority. It is nothing more than the authority of other presbyters in the church. The supreme authority granted to Peter by the Catholic church cannot possibly be held by a “fellow presbyter”. Peter, by his own admission, does not hold an office of universal jurisdiction.
In all likelihood, Peter is merely exercising the humility he has exhorted his brethren to practice (see 1 Peter 3:8; 5:5-6). This harkens us back to the gospels when Christ (in answering the apostle’s argument over who will be the greatest) insists that the leaders of his Church must be the most humble in the community:
And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant. (Matthew 20:27).
The greatest among you must behave as if he were the youngest, the leader as if he were the one who serves. (Luke 22:26).
Is Peter placing his authority on the same level with all other presbyters? No, he has already identified that he has apostolic authority in the introduction to his letter (see 1 Peter 1:1). Steve Ray explains further that the condescension and humility often practiced by authoritative leaders does not diminish their role or their office:
Peter certainly does not deny the primacy the Lord Jesus had bestowed on him. When the President of the United States addresses the nation, he does not start out by saying, “I am your superior, the highest authority in the land, the most powerful man in the world”; rather, he humbly addresses the American citizens with the words: “My fellow Americans”. Is this a denial of presidential authority? Of course not. The president is both a fellow citizen and the most powerful political figure in the world. In his 1993 encyclical The Splendour of Truth (Boston, Mass.: St. Paul Books & Media, 1993), 9, John Paul II addresses his readers in this way: “Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, Health and Apostolic Blessing!” Do the Pope’s words of equality and fraternity contradict the primacy of his office? Again, of course not. Peter’s humility only enhances his position.[8]
Footnotes:
[1] Sungenis, Robert A. letter to authors, 7 November 1995, p. 2-3.
[2] Butler, S., Dahlgren, N., and Hess, D. Jesus, Peter & The Keys, Santa Barbara, Queenship Publishing, 1996, p.58.
[3] Bruce, F.F. The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1983, p.148.
[4] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p. 280.
[5] Sungenis, Robert A. James Use of the Imperative Mood in Acts 15:14, letter to authors, 28 July 1995, p.1.
[6] Ellicot, Charles John. The Epistle to Galatians, Ephesians, and Philippians, London: Cassel & Co., n.d., p.32.
[7] Radio Replies, ed. Charles Carty, 1938; reprint, Rockford, Ill.: TAN Books, 1979, 1:82-83.
[8] Ray, Steve. Upon This Rock, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 1999, p.59.