Nature of the Papacy in the Early Church

Roman Catholicism Index

The Roman Catholic Church has claimed in its official documents that its dogmas are entirely consistent with the beliefs of the church fathers. One of the Roman Catholic ecumenical councils [which are supposedly infallible], Vatican I, asserted that the Roman Church’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 (i.e. papal primacy and infallibility) is supported by the unanimous consent of the church fathers:

Primacy (emphasis mine):

We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universalChurch of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. For it was to Simon alone, to whom he had already said: ‘Thou shalt be called Cephas,’ that the Lord after the confession made by him, saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ addressed these solemn words: ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, it shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven’…At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister.

-Vatican I, chapter 1 http://www.christiantruth.com/papacyandrcfaith.html

Infallibility (emphasis mine):

This gift, then, of truth and never-failing faith was conferred by heaven upon Peter and his successors in his chair, that they might perform their high office for the salvation of all; that the whole flock of Christ, kept away by them from the poisonous food of error, might be nourished with the pasture of heavenly doctrine; that the occasion of schism being removed, the whole Church might be kept one, and, resting on its foundation, might stand firm against the gates of hell. But since in this very age, in which the salutary efficacy of the Apostolic office is most of all required, not a few are found who take away from its authority, we judge it altogether necessary solemnly to assert the prerogative which the only-begotten Son of God vouchsafed to join with the supreme pastoral office. Therefore faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Christian religion, and the salvation of Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals to be held by the universal Church, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the divine redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed for defining doctrine regarding faith or morals; and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church.

-Vatican I, chapter 4 http://www.christiantruth.com/papacyandrcfaith.html

Thus, the Roman Catholic Church’s interpretation of this text is rooted in the patristic interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Therefore, if the church fathers and the rest of the early church unanimously believed that Matthew 16:18 applied not only to Peter but also his successors and that the bishops of Rome were infallible, then this would be a devastating blow to all non-Roman Catholic Christian denominations. On the other hand, if it can be shown that the early church did not believe what Vatican I stated above, then the primacy and infallibility of the bishop of Rome will have been proven false. After studying the works of the church fathers, it is apparent that not only did a minority of church fathers interpret Matthew 16:18 as referring to Peter, but that none of them interpreted the verse to mean that the bishop of Rome has full jurisdiction over the church. Also, none of them interpreted it to mean that the bishops of Rome were infallible either. The patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18 are found here: http://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html

What will follow are quotes from Protestant and even Roman Catholic scholars who will confirm that the claims of Vatican I are false.

Protestant:

“But none of these can be reconciled with the interpretation which regards this text as containing the charter of the Church’s organization. A charter would be worthless if it were left uncertain to whom it was addressed or what powers it conferred. So that the mere fact that Fathers differed in opinion as to what was meant by “this rock,” and that occasionally the same Father wavered in his opinion on this subject, proves that none of them regarded this text as one establishing a perpetual constitution for the Christian Church.”

-George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959), p.337.

“The French Roman Catholic Launoy surveyed the patristic evidence and found seventeen citations supporting the concept that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16. Please note that this does not mean that all sixteen of these Fathers also felt that this meant that the bishop of Rome was a Pope, but only that they felt that they saw Matthew 16 and the phrase “this rock” as referring to Peter. However, Launoy found sixteen citations that identified the rock as Christ. He found eight that identified all the Apostles together as forming the rock of Matthew 16. And he found forty-four citations indicating that the rock of Matthew 16 was the confession of faith made by Peter in Jesus Christ.”

-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), p.120.

“Butler in his response to Salmon attempted to defuse this difficult reality by citing the work of Fr. Joseph Crehan. Crehan gave as those in favor of Peter as the rock, 16; in favor of the apostolic college, 6; in favor of Peter’s faith, 17, and in favor of Christ, 4. This still adds up to 27 out of 43 (62.8%) giving a “perverse” opinion on the passage.”

-James R. White, The Roman Catholic Controversy (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1996), footnote #22 of ch.8, p.249.

Roman Catholic:

“There are among ancient authors some who interpret “on this rock,” that is, “on this faith,” or “on this confession of faith in which thou hast called me the Son of the living God,” as Hilary, and Gregory Nyssen, and Chrysostom, and Cyril of Alexandria. St. Augustine, going still further away from the true sense, interprets “on this rock,” that is on myself Christ,” because Christ was the rock. But Origen “on this rock,” that is to say, “on all men who have the same faith.””

-The Jesuit Maldonatus as found in: George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1959), p.335.

“The scriptural text most commonly cited in favor of papal infallibility is Luke 22.32. There is no lack of patristic commentary on the text. None of the Fathers interpreted it as meaning that Peter’s successors were infallible.”

-Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility (Leiden: Brill, 1972), p. 11.

“To my knowledge, nobody seems to have challenged Tierney’s contention that the entire first millennium is entirely silent on papal infallibility and that, therefore, Vatican I’s contention concerning the early roots of the doctrine is difficult to maintain.”

-Luis Bermejo, Infallibility on Trial (Westminster: Christian Classics, 1992), p.164.

“Unanimous patristic consent as a reliable locus theologicus is classical in Catholic theology; it has often been declared such by the magisterium and its value in scriptural interpretation has been especially stressed. Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is rare… But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter's confession in Matthew 16.16-18. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy…”

-Yves Congar, Tradition and Traditions (New York: Macmillan Company, 1966), pp. 397-400.

“All this is intelligible enough, if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to St. Peter. Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matt. xvi.18, John xxi.17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successors.”

-J.H. Ignaz von Dollinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1869), pp.73-74.

Next, a few of the church fathers (whose works are available online) will be cited to prove the point that Vatican I’s interpretation of Matthew 16:18 does not find unanimous consent among the church fathers:

And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.

-Origen, Commentary on Matthew 12.10

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-10/anf10-48.htm#P7807_1648194

What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.” “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession.

-John Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew LIV.3

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-10/npnf1-10-60.htm#P5263_1628465

Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession, for “On this rock,” He says, “I will build my church and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.”

-Theodoret, Letters of the Blessed Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, Letter146

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-03/Npnf2-03-23.htm#P5332_1283104

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite the incredible weight of the evidence that is plain for any objective student of history to see, Roman apologists have used a few a-contextual citations of certain church fathers to support the primacy and infallibility of their Pope. William Webster has dealt with just about all the misrepresentations here: http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

However, I will deal with one that stands out and is frequently used by Roman apologists to support the claims of Vatican I. Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, wrote:

After such things as these, moreover, they still dare-a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics-to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access.

-Cyprian, The Epistles of Cyprian, Epistle 54.14

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-79.htm#P5695_1758177

In context, Cyprian is criticizing a few heretics at Rome who disobeyed their bishop, the bishop of Rome. Roman apologists latch on to the phrase, “…throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source”, and tell their readers that Cyprian believed in the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, this is highly misleading because they misrepresent Cyprian’s ecclesiology. Cyprian believed that all bishops sat on the chair of Peter:

If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”… Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.

-Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 4

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-05/anf05-111.htm#P6832_2190664

Robert Eno, a Roman Catholic historian, comes to the same conclusion:

“The Chair of Peter…belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome.”

-Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), p.58.

Michael Winter, another Roman Catholic historian, says the same:

“Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connections of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought…Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority…Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter.”

-Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Westport: Greenwood, 1960), pp. 47-48.

So, it must be asked, “Why are these apologists throwing out this misleading information?” The answer is probably not that they are purposefully deceptive but that they are picking up patristic works such as Jurgens’ The Faith of the Early Fathers, turning to the Doctrinal Index, and reading citations of the early fathers that are without context. This kind of misrepresentation of the early fathers on the nature of the papacy includes Tertullian, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Ambrose, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and others.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Also, some helpful audio on this topic can be found at:

http://www.straitgate.com/webster/

http://www.straitgate.com/aom/dl/99.htm (Jan. 30, Feb. 6)

Some helpful online reading can be found here:

http://www.christiantruth.com/mt16.html

http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html

http://aomin.org/Whitewash1.html

Responses to Roman Catholic claims concerning Matthew 16:18 and the early church:

http://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html

http://www.christiantruth.com/ray2.html

http://www.christiantruth.com/ray3index.html