It seemed only fitting I post this as I'm reading about a man who converted out of Catholicism. This is a study I've done on the authority of the papacy. Enjoy!
As a non-Catholic, I often have questions about the Roman Catholic Church. I do not identify as a Protestant either as I feel they have their errors too. But in speaking with a Catholic friend of mine, naturally the idea of Scripture being man’s sole authority came up. This raised the idea that they believe the church has authority as well, in addition to Scripture. This seems to be the biggest difference between Catholics and non-Catholics, so this brought me to do a study on the papacy.
During our discourse though, he mentioned something that I had not heard before. He said that the word of God was not synonymous with Scripture. This struck me as odd because it couldn’t be farther from the truth. Here’s why…
The Word of God
The “word of God” is found nearly forty times in the New Testament and is used in a couple of different ways. The phrase itself simply means a message from God. I’m sure many Christians know that the Word was what we know as Jesus in the flesh some two thousand years ago. He was the message from God in that He is the Savior of the world. He spoke on behalf of the Father (John 3:34; 14:10). However, the phrase also denotes Scripture.
In the parable of the sower, Jesus says that the seed that was planted was the “word of God” (Luke 8:11). Just a few verses later, when asked about his mother and brothers, Jesus said, “My mother and My brothers are these who hear the word of God and do it” (8:21).
Another time, the Pharisees were questioning Jesus and why His disciples “transgress the tradition of the elders?” (Matthew 15:2) To which Jesus asked, “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (v. 3). He then concludes, “Thus you have made the word of God of no effect by your tradition.”. (v. 6). The Lord here is endorsing the Scriptures, mainly the Old Testament. In Old Testament times, God would speak to prophets and they would relay the word to the people of Israel. Then they would write it down for future Israelites to read and know who God was.
Now, we did not live during Jesus’ time here on Earth. So, how was that message conveyed to people after He ascended (John 20:29)? He chose apostles who were told to go and preach to all of the world of the good news about Jesus (Mark 16:15). This was done orally, with the aid of reasoning from Scripture.
We can see this throughout the book of Acts (4:31; 13:5). The word of God was to be heard (cf. 13:7; 44) and received (cf. 11:1). And when it was, it was glorified (13:48). This is what we ought to do today. As the kingdom grew in that day, the word of God was said to have grown also (6:7; 12:24).
Near the end of their lives, they too, were commanded to write down the message they were preaching, just like the prophets of the Old Testament (see 2 Peter 1:21). This would later become the New Testament.
We can see this in these letters that they wrote. For instance, to the Corinthians, Paul rebukes them by rhetorically asking them, “Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached?” (1 Corinthians 14:36). To those in Thessalonica, he praised them by saying, “For this reason we also thank God without ceasing, because when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you welcomed it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which also effectively works in you who believe.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13).
These men diligently then wrote down, by way of the Holy Spirit, that message that is used to convict people of their sins (cf. John 16:8). It’s even compared to a sword we are to use in our spiritual battle (Ephesians 6:17; Hebrews 4:12). That is how powerful the gospel of God is (Romans 1:16; 10:17). Even though it’s not audible to us today, as we don’t have Jesus or the apostles living today, we have their written words preserved for us by God’s providence. There’s nothing special about the leather and paper themselves we have, but the message that is contained within the pages of the Bible that’s important. That is how the Holy Spirit convicts people. The word of God is about Christ’s saving message to mankind.
The Final Authority
Getting back to the original debate, this is how the early church viewed authority. God alone has the authority. They would quote the Old Testament and later the apostles and other inspired men (New Testament), who were guided by the Holy Spirit. God’s word, which we call the Bible today, is our only authority. A quote from Gregory of Nyssa seems to confirm this as he wrote around 375, “…we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings” (On the Soul and Resurrection).
I cannot say that my friends position stands for the Catholic Church as a whole because that would not be fair. I have gotten mixed responses when asking others in Catholicism anyways. I can only assume though that it stems from their stance that “sacred tradition” is on par with “sacred scripture.” Why they separate these two is confusing to me. They define “sacred scripture” as the Bible of course, but “sacred tradition” they will say is the oral doctrine that the apostles handed down to their disciples. Things that may not be in the Bible. One verse I hear a lot to support this is 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which says, “Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.” They will emphasize the fact that Paul separates things which the congregation heard “by word of mouth” and by “our epistle” (Scripture). Is that what Paul is saying though?
Paul elsewhere says that what he was preaching at one congregation, he was preaching to every congregation (1 Corinthians 7:17; see also Acts 20:20). He also writes often how Christians should be of the same mind doctrinally (1 Corinthians 1:10; Philippians 3:16) and that his epistles should be circulated to other congregations (Colossians 4:16). This means that he preached the exact same thing everywhere he went, just like the other apostles So, what are these “traditions” that are being handed down? It’s the gospel of God, which has been written down for us today. That’s it. These traditions are Scripture. They are one in the same for us today, once Scripture was completed. There is nothing secret or unknown that was passed down outside of the Holy Spirit’s gospel (cf. Ephesians 3:1-12).
The Holy Scriptures are God’s final revelation to mankind. Through inspiration of the Holy Spirit (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21), He has guided men to write down what He wanted revealed to us. He has given us everything we need to know (2 Peter 1:3). It makes us complete and equips us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17). What God says is truth (Psalm 119:160; John 17:17; Titus 1:2) and it will make us free (John 8:32). And we are often told not to take away or add to what God has already said (Deuteronomy 4:2; 12:32; Proverbs 30:6; Revelation 22:18-19). Why would we want to deviate from God’s truth?
God used to speak to his prophets of old. He then commanded them to write down things for us to be able to read. He did the same thing through Jesus and then the apostles through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit then guided these men to write down what God said for future people to know Him. This is how God talks to us today. When I say to use Scripture as our authority, I mean to say that God is our final authority.
A Long Line of Popes
This discussion led me to do a further study on the popes of the Catholic Church. There has been a long line of popes. In 2013, Francis became the 266th one elected. Catholics believe that this line of succession stems all the way back to Simon Peter, the apostle of Jesus. The Catholic Church interprets Matthew 16, when Christ was talking about establishing His church, that He meant that He would build the church upon Peter, the “rock,” and had him become the head of the church. Thus, Peter, according to Catholicism, was the first pope and since then they have had a universal head.
This goes in line with the Catholic teaching of Scripture I mentioned earlier. They believe it is an authority but that it is not the only authority, as many Protestant churches hold to. Catholics also feel that the church, and more importantly the pope, has authority to “establish doctrine” as one priest put it. That the traditions of the Catholic Church are also authoritative. And so, I am doing my duty, as a child of God, to set out and see if this is the correct position. To find out the truth.
To start, I viewed the number of popes there have been. As I expected, it started with Peter the apostle, and ends with Francis. As a non-Catholic though, I was always told that the first pope was Boniface III. He appears 66th on the list. Naturally, I investigated and I found this to be true. Boniface III was the first to actually hold the title of “Universal Bishop.” This came from a close relationship with Emperor Phocas who gave this bishop of Rome the official title. This now ensured that Rome’s bishop was the universal head over the entire church. Augustine even wrote, “Rome has spoken; the case is finished.” (Sermons 131,10).
This, however had me confused. If the official title of pope was not given until the 66th bishop, what did that mean for the previous 65 men? If Rome’s bishop did not have authority until then, what authority did these predecessors have? This is why I decided to look into this. What you have now is just a list of the bishops of Rome, not any “popes.” At least for the first 65 men.
Now, before I dig further, I feel it is necessary to define our terms. For those who are unfamiliar, the term “bishop” refers to an overseer of a congregation. There are actually different terms that can be used to describe this position. In the Greek, there was the word presbuteros which is translated as “elder” or “presbyter.” There is also espiskopos which is translated “bishop” or “overseer.” Then, there is poimen which is translated “pastor” or “shepherd.” All of these terms are used interchangeably in Scripture and refer to the men that are in authority in a congregation. The only one higher than these men would be Jesus Himself who is Head over all of the church (Colossians 1:18). Also, to be an overseer, you need to meet certain qualifications, such as be married (1 Timothy 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-9).
Now, this authority that these overseers have is not in regards to doctrine. Doctrine has already been established by God in His written word. In Matthew 18:18 for example, Jesus is telling His apostles that whatever they bind and loose here on Earth, will be bound and loosed in Heaven. The English translation is a little fuzzy though, because in the original Greek, it is actually saying that whatever they bind or loose on Earth would have already been bound and loosed in Heaven. Some Bible versions actually correct this translation problem. Much like Jesus said in His model prayer that God’s will should be done on Earth as it is in Heaven (Matthew 6:10). We only have the authority to teach what God has already established.
That seems to be the first problem I came across. See, the only authority overseers have is that of a shepherd. To tend to, feed, and protect the flock from predators (false teachers), not to rule over it (1 Peter 5:2-3). They are there to lead their church by example.
Some of the Protestant churches fall short of this organization as well, having just a single “pastor” become head of their church. Yes, the overseer should be apt to teach (1 Timothy 3:2), but he is not necessarily the evangelist too. That is a different position altogether. Along with these men, every member of the church is still subject to the head which is Christ (Colossians 1:22-23). No one is superior over another.
It should be mentioned too that the New Testament shows to have multiple overseers at a single congregation of people (cf. Acts 14:23; 20:28). I can only assume the reason is to avoid a dictatorship. The first mention of a single overseer is Ignatius of Antioch around the year 110, some 40 years after the apostles. He was an overseer of his congregation and seems to have separated the role of “bishop” from the presbytery. This doesn’t necessarily mean that this was an elevated position but it is worth nothing.
Now, I already came to this study believing Peter wasn’t the first bishop of Rome, but I had to check for validity. The Bible isn’t clear what area he held the office but he was an overseer (1 Peter 5:1). When I looked, I actually didn’t find any evidence of Peter ever being in Rome. When Paul writes to the Roman church, he doesn’t mention Peter in his salutations. When Paul writes to the churches in Galatia (chapter 2), he tells of Peter in Jerusalem and Antioch. In Peter’s own two epistles, he never mentions being in the area or being head of anyone for that matter. He actually refers to Christ as the cornerstone which the church is built upon (1 Peter 2:4-8). Even looking at the early “church fathers” writings after the New Testament, not one reference to Peter being in Rome, let alone the overseer of the congregation there.
Now while there is no internal evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, Eusebius does place Peter there preaching prior to his death (Hist. Eccl. 6.14.6–7) and Irenaeus and Papias also allude to it. John Foxe also speaks of Peter’s martyrdom in Rome citing Hegesippus (Foxe’s Book of Martyrs, 7). All that being said though, there is not any evidence that he was the “pope” or even considered a bishop in the church at Rome. Only by tradition, we possibly see that by the middle of the second century, Peter had been in Rome.
Who Was After Peter?
So, I went back to the list of popes again. If Peter was not the first pope in Rome, was the next guy? The second pope according to the Catholic’s list was a man named Linus. According to history, this is the same Linus Paul refers to in 2 Timothy 4:21. Being the common belief that Paul wrote this epistle in Rome, this evidence holds a little more weight. The early church writer Irenaeus seems to hold true to this as well when he wrote around 180 A.D., “The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.” (Against Heresies; 3,3,3). Irenaeus also goes on to list off the next eleven overseers of Rome in that chapter. Going back to Linus though, we see that the apostles gave him this office, not just Peter. If this is correct then, along with the evidence of maybe Peter was not in Rome, at the very least, Catholics would have to conclude that it was actually Linus who was the first pope.
Being one that loves history, I enjoy reading the early church writers. Another one of these “apostolic fathers” was Clement of Rome. Comparing the list that Irenaeus compiled, this was the same Clement that was the fourth overseer over this congregation. This man actually has two epistles attributed to him, although many believe it may have only been the first one. As I read through his letters, and the other early church writings, what I found was a bit striking. Actually, like before, it was what I did not find. I realized that when these men were writing on doctrine, they quoted Scripture. A lot of it. Not any of Rome’s overseers. It has actually been theorized that even if the New Testament was lost completely, most of it could be recreated from these men alone, which is truly remarkable.
What I did not see was them appealing to any overseer of Rome. They knew who was in office and they never referred to something Linus said nor does Clement ever refer to himself as being a “universal bishop” over the whole church. They either referenced Scripture or cite what the apostles taught (which for us today would be the New Testament). However, there are quotes of men saying that the overseer of Rome had the authority. I asked myself how that could be. It is because those men that say that, did so centuries after the apostles died. So, what happened from the time of the apostles and early “fathers” to when men like Cyprian who were saying “If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” in 251 and that the overseer of Rome was the head of the church?
We have to keep in mind that early on, Christianity was heavily persecuted by the Roman empire because it combated with the polytheistic culture of the Romans. Even under such strong persecution, the church still grew. As it grew, so did the role of the bishops. Not only were they overseeing one congregation, but many in a city or regions. Then Constantine the Great became the emperor of Rome in 306. It’s pretty well known that this emperor saw these persecuted Christians and instead of continuing in that persecution, to instead lifted the ban of Christianity in Rome. Many believe that it he thought it would help his legacy as emperor.
It should be noted that many outside of the Catholic Church will say the it was Constantine who “founded” the Catholic Church. This is simply a false statement. These people just do not do the proper research. Constantine did not establish the Catholic Church. Many believe it was Theodosius I who officially named Christianity the religion of Roman empire but that still does not answer the question. It did not start from one guy but subtle changes within the church over a period of time which started with the roles of the presbytery.
Did Constantine and Theodosius help with these changes? No doubt. When you establish the religion of the Roman people as Christianity, it is no wonder they think that Rome has supremacy over the universal church. During the time of Constantine, the church had divided into five main regions; Rome, Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem. So, naturally, as humans do, there were always power struggles to see who the more supreme region was. Rome was the powerhouse in the West while Antioch was the head in the East.
Constantine gave many bishops judicial and legal authority in addition to their spiritual authority. As humans do, by the end of the fourth century, many of these bishops became corrupted by their political power. As these changes went on, the church wanted bishops, who were already head over many congregations within a given region, to have someone heading them. Then, they needed someone governing those bishops and so on and so forth until you have one man overseeing the entire church, the pope. This is just not what you find in the first century and the Scriptures.
It was not until Damasus was elected the overseer of Rome in 382 when this office really started showing that Rome had primacy over the whole church. He wrote in one of his decrees, “The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it.” It was not much longer when, as I stated earlier that Boniface III was officially given the title of “Universal Bishop” over the entire church. This is how the church in the West became supreme. It was because of the political power they had. When the church in the East saw this, they began to distance themselves from their western counterparts and became the Eastern Orthodox Church. It actually was this very aspect, though not the only one, which separated the Eastern and Western churches, known as the Great Schism, in 1054. This idea that Rome had supreme power over the whole church.
This is just a brief history of how the papacy started. Being infiltrated and corrupted by the power of the Roman government over hundreds of years. The Roman Catholic Church has many striking similarities to the Roman government. With the pope acting as emperor and even taking on the title of Pontifex Maximus from the chief high priest of the Roman priesthood. This, however, is a different study altogether.
Conclusion
To conclude, where does the evidence lead us? If you go by Scripture, we do not have any reason to believe that Peter was the first overseer of Rome. The apostles instituted the organization of the churches which constructed of a plurality of overseers at a single congregation. These men were the highest authority. There was no hierarchy within the church of Christ. Each congregation was autonomous yet united together under Christ’s reign.
Peter is not even recognized to be the head of the apostles, let alone head of the church. He writes himself to be a “fellow elder” (1 Peter 5:1). Paul calls himself a fellow apostle (2 Corinthians 11:5). Too, when it came to the apostles gathering together in church matters, such as in Acts 15, Peter was not the one who presided over it. James was actually the one who took charge in this particular instance.
Something worth noting too. It is widely known that John Mark was Peter’s understudy. Papias who wrote around 140 A.D. writes, “Mark having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately whatsoever he remembered.” Irenaeus also wrote, “Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” So, Mark’s gospel account is most likely Peter’s story handed down to him.
So, what’s interesting though is Mark’s version of Matthew 16. This chapter is what Catholic’s use to support that Peter is the “rock” that Christ built the church on (see Matthew 16:18). The parallel passage is Mark 8:27-30. Notice that it is significantly shorter than Matthew’s account. It also, conveniently, leaves out the whole part about Jesus building His church upon Peter. Now if this, in fact, was Peter’s telling, why would he leave out such a profound piece of narrative? That is, if indeed he was the “rock” and first pope. I think that would be something worth mentioning, but instead, there’s no record of it.
Too, none of the early “apostolic fathers’” refer to any universal head over the church. They only appealed to Scripture and the apostles for their authority. That was their standard to live by. None of them sought out authority from any overseer of Rome. Again, while it is true that the apostles orally gave people God’s word during their time, near the end of their lives they, or one of their disciples wrote down what that word was. Scripture now is God’s word to us today.
Catholics view the church as some powerful institution when it is actually not. The church is simply the disciples of Christ who were called out of this world. The church is the people. Christ is head. He is the ruler of His kingdom. There really is no need to go through a priest or the pope because each individual who makes up the church is his own “priesthood” (1 Peter 2:5). Every Christian now has a personally relationship with God because of His Son he sacrificed. This should be glorious for us to hear.
One final thought. One of the main reasons to have the Magisterium is to infallibly interpret the Scriptures. But this really is an unreasonable teaching. It reminds me of the question, “If God created everything, who created God?”, which is a logical fallacy. It would result in an infinite regression because even if X created God, one would ask who created X and so on and so forth. Who’s to say this infallible interpreter doesn’t need an infallible translator? And so on and so forth. Too, it seems odd that the Magisterium needs to go to Scripture at all if they are a higher authority than Scripture. Yet they appeal to Scripture in order to try and promote their doctrines. Weird.
God’s infallible word doesn’t need an infallible interpreter. One only needs to go to the infallible source itself to get their doctrine. The Bible was written to the laypeople and often times tells them to check for themselves whether what is being taught, is indeed from God. This argument that we need someone to interpret Scripture for us is really self-refuting and makes God out to be one who is not able to make Himself clear to His own creation.
Comments