II.) The Line of the Vicar of Christ
Throughout the past 1700+ years, many have pointed to the entity known as the Catholic Church as the only truly designated authority over the Body of Christ. They also have believed the Pope is its authority and his line of succession has been unbroken from Peter to the current Pope, John Paul II. According to the Catholic Church itself, it has enjoyed an unbroken connection with the first century church, via the Pope’s line of succession, beginning with Peter. The online Catholic Tract, “Pillar of Fire, Pillar of Truth”, explains it this way:
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history (Keating 1996). [my emphasis]
The Second Vatican Council mirrors this claim:
In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one, and undivided he put Peter at the head of the other apostles, and in him he set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and communion. This teaching concerning the institution, the permanence, the nature and import of the sacred primacy of the Roman Pontiff and his infallible teaching office, the sacred synod proposes anew to be firmly believed by all faithful, and, proceeding undeviatingly with the same undertaking, it proposes to proclaim publicly and enunciate clearly the doctrine concerning bishops, successors of the apostles, who together with Peter’s successor, the Vicar of Christ and the visible head of the whole church, direct the house of the living God (Flannery 1981). [my emphasis]
While these documents speak of an unbroken succession (as do countless others), the evidence does not seem to bear out the claim that the Catholic Church has enjoyed an unbroken line from Peter to John Paul II. Over the next few pages, the evidence that points to the contrary will be presented and examined.
A.) Was Peter Really The First Pope?
Millions of people point to Peter as the first Pope, the head over all of the other apostles and the one who was given the keys to the kingdom. Much of this belief is based on the way the Catholic Church has interpreted a single verse in the Bible:
And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:18).
It is vitally important to test this claim, though, in order to determine its validity. What follows, are a group of facts that must not be overlooked, when assessing this declaration. The issues of celibacy, opposition to Peter, the headship of Peter in the early Church, Paul’s position, with respect to Peter, and the interpretation of Matthew 16:18 will be explored here.
1.) Celibacy
a.) The Church’s Stance on Celibacy
One of the markers of the Papacy, and indeed, within the whole priesthood, have included the prerequisite of celibacy. The belief has been fostered, partly based on what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 19:12:
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. (Matthew 19:12)
This is a wonderful verse which speaks of a person’s willingness to be completely chaste for the kingdom of God. However, nowhere in the Bible, does it mention that this should be a prerequisite of the service of ‘priesthood’, while here on earth.
The Second Vatican Council speaks of the issue of celibacy in the lives of those called to the priesthood, thusly:
Students who follow the venerable tradition of priestly celibacy as laid down by the holy and permanent regulations of their own right should be very carefully trained for this state. In it they renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom of heaven (cf. Matthew 19:12) and hold fast to their Lord with that undivided love which is profoundly in harmony with the New Covenant; they bear witness to the resurrection in a future life (cf. Luke 20:36) and obtain the most useful assistant towards the constant exercise of that perfect charity by which they can become all things to all men in their priestly ministry. (Flannery 1981). (my emphasis)
While they concede that neither the Early Church nor the Eastern Churches followed this belief, (Flannery 1981) . they, nevertheless, consider it an ordinance which should be strictly adhered to in the life of a priest:
[B]ased on the mystery of Christ and his mission, celibacy, which at first was recommended to priests, was afterwards in the Latin church imposed by law on all who were to be promoted to holy Orders. This sacred Council approves and confirms this legislation so far as it concerns those destined for the priesthood, and feels confident in the Spirit that the gift of celibacy, so appropriate to the priesthood of the New Testament, is literally granted by the Father, provided those who share Christ's priesthood through the sacrament of Order, and indeed the whole Church, ask for that gift humbly and earnestly (Flannery 1981) . [my emphasis]
Here, we are told that the Vatican Council approves and confirms the legislation that made this vow a requisite of priesthood. However, just a little further down in the same section, it is implied that this vow is taken “of their own free choice” (Flannery 1981) . This is a blatant contradiction, since it is considered to be one of the prerequisites to entering the priesthood in the Roman Catholic Church and it is most certainly a prerequisite for the Papal Throne. One may not actually enter into the office of priesthood -- especially a higher office, such as that of the Papacy -- without agreeing to this ordinance.
b.) The Biblical Perspective
Biblically speaking, however, whether one chooses to be celibate or married, seems to be of little consequence in the overall scheme of things. God has always permitted His people, even priests, to marry while ministering. Although it is true that Jesus said celibacy was a good practice to consider, as did Paul, never was it mentioned that it should be enforced as a prerequisite of to those who chose to be full-time ministers of the Gospel. On the contrary. In the book of 1 Timothy, all are warned that the practice of making it into a legal requisite, is categorically condemned.
Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats [22], which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth. For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving: For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer (I Timothy 4:1-5). [my emphasis]
Scripture seems to be relatively clear on this point. While it is perfectly appropriate to choose abstinence while doing the work of the Lord, it is by no means, required by law. In fact, when Paul speaks about celibacy, he makes sure all know these ideas are his and not a direct revelatory commandment of God
I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that. But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion (I Corinthians 7:6-9). [my emphasis]
This scripture has [apparently] not been permitted to be applied within the Catholic Church as a rule. Should a priest (or Pope) decide they need to be married, the only way they may be released to do so, is to step down from their position as ‘vicar’ or priest. One must realize that this act is looked upon by both the clergy and laity within this organization, with great disdain.
c.) What About Peter Himself?
Without a doubt, the Church’s stance and the Bible’s doctrines seem to be somewhat in contention. at least with regard to issues skirting around the Papal throne. In order to determine whether or not celibacy should have been made into law, (at least from the Catholic perspective), one must look at the issue of Peter’s marital status. Did Peter choose to be a eunuch “for the kingdom of heaven's sake” (Matthew 19:12)? [my emphasis]
If scripture were the deciding factor in this argument, the answer would again be ‘no’. It is shown in Matthew 16:18 that Peter had a mother-in-law, who was healed by Jesus. This explicitly shows that the real Peter was a married man, for it is impossible to have a mother-in-law and not be married. Another reference which alludes to the marital status of the would-be pope, may be found in I Corinthians 9:5 (Peter is called Cephas here). If Peter was the first pope, he was also a married man! The next question for the readers of this paper to ponder is: why then does Catholicism forbid present-day popes to be married, like Peter was? This query has no definitive answer, since the Catholic Church has never fully addressed it.
2.) Opposition To Peter
The evidence is mounting: not only was Peter a married man, but he was also rebuked by both Jesus and Paul on at least one occasion. One must ponder the significance of these events, when looking at the claim that Peter was the Leader of the entire early Church.
a.) Rebuke By Jesus
In the book of Matthew, shortly after Peter was allegedly given the keys of the kingdom,[23] Peter heard his Lord speak of His death, burial and resurrection:
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day (Matthew 19:12).
Believing Jesus was in error, Peter took the Christ off to the side, and began to rebuke Him for His predictions:
Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee (Matthew 16:22).
Jesus’ response was quick and sharp:
But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men (Matthew 16:23).
The one who was supposed to be the visible head of the newly formed Church was quickly shown that he had allowed Satan to use him to try and thwart the plans the Father had for the Kingdom. Parenthetically, “Get thee behind me, Satan”, is the exact phrase as that which Jesus uttered to Satan during the Lord’s forty days in the desert. [24] This appears to have been a pretty grievous error for the first ‘Vicar if Christ’ to make. At the very least, it shows that his teaching was not what it should have been. He clearly did not understand the gravity of the job he was supposed to be carrying out.[25]
b.) Paul Opposes Peter
In Galatians, Paul openly reprehended Peter in front of others:
"But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews" (Galatians 2: 11-14) [my emphases]
Paul corrected Peter without reserve because Peter was "in the wrong." It is unlikely that Paul would ever have openly opposed Peter if he was the "visible head of the church." [26] While this incident on its own shows it is rather unlikely that Peter was the first Pope, there is much more compelling evidence than this, which points to the same conclusion.
3.) The Jerusalem Council
Among the more compelling arguments, is that of the leadership at the Jerusalem Council. At this Council, it was determined that new converts need not worry about becoming circumcised, prior to (or after) becoming Christians.
What is of interest here, is not necessarily the proclamations made at this Council, but the conspicuous position (or lack thereof) Peter held. While he was, without doubt, present at this momentous Council, he certainly did not preside over it; this honor went to James [27], not Peter. Additionally, although Peter had some say in the procession itself, it was James, not Peter, who decided the outcome of the deliberations:
And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me . . . [w]herefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day (Acts 15:13-21). [my emphasis]
Without a doubt, the man James was the one who presided over the Jerusalem Council.
So then, because Peter did not convoke it or proclaim the doctrine, the assembly should not have been considered ‘authentic’ by the Holy Catholic See. In The Second Vatican Council, it states that:
[I]t is the prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to control such councils, to preside over them and to confirm them (Flannery 1981). [my emphasis]
In this instance, Peter did not perform the duties he was ascribed, when he became the ‘Vicar of Christ’; James did. Further, the ‘bishops did not “respect the primacy and pre-eminence of their head” (Flannery 1981), but considered him to be only one of the many ‘witnesses’ who testified, regarding this issue of circumcision.
4.) Various Other Proofs
a.) Peter Never Mentioned He Had Primacy
First of all, while it has been shown that others did not seem to consider him the
‘head’ of the Church, it is important to find out what Peter believed. In I Peter 5:1, his feelings were revealed:
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed . . . . (I Peter 5:1)
In this passage, Peter had written to other ‘elders’ in the church, but never once mentioned that he was supposed to have been placed in a position of primacy above them. He considered himself ‘also an elder’ not unlike the apostle John did in II John 1:1.
b.) The Others Were Not Told Of His Position
Further, if he were supposed to be the head of the visible Church, certainly the other apostles would have known this, if not immediately following the proclamation purportedly made by Jesus in Matthew 16:18, then at least afterward, when they were squabbling among themselves about who was the greatest among them.
Let these sayings sink down into your ears: for the Son of man shall be delivered into the hands of men. But they understood not this saying, and it was hid from them, that they perceived it not: and they feared to ask him of that saying. Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest. And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him, And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he that is least among you all, the same shall be great (Luke 9:44-48). [my emphasis]
In This passage, He told them that anyone who did anything in His name would be considered great in the Kingdom of God.
But, behold, the hand of him that betrayeth me is with me on the table. And truly the Son of man goeth, as it was determined: but woe unto that man by whom he is betrayed! And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing. And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest. And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me; That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. And he said unto him, Lord, I am ready to go with thee, both into prison, and to death. And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me (Luke 22:21-34). [my emphasis]
Without a doubt, this passage occurred after the incident mentioned in Matthew and in Jesus’ presence, yet Jesus did not once correct them by saying that He had appointed Peter to be the ’head’ of the Church. Instead, He identifies Peter as the one who would betray Him three times before the next dawn. Additionally, He bequeathed the Kingdom to all of those who were willing to serve, not just Peter. Had Jesus appointed Peter the ‘Head’, He would have cleared up this contention with a clear rebuke to the rest, saying that Peter was the one to whom He had given the primacy. In reality, this was not an exclusive appointment; it was an inclusive invitation.
c.) Servanthood
While no one would contend that Peter was a servant of the Lord, the issue is whether he was the greatest servant or not. This would appear to be the main requisite asked for by Christ, in determining who was ‘the greatest’ among them.
Both Paul and John exceeded the venerable Peter, when it came to the quantity they contributed to the finished work we now know as the Bible. Peter wrote 2 books of the New Testament (or 8 chapters), while John wrote 5 books (or 50 chapters) and Paul at least 13 books (or at least 87 chapters). Both John and Paul wrote much more of the eternal Word of God than Peter. While this is by no means the only measuring stick one may use, it is certainly a compelling one. “Why?”, some may ask. If Peter were the definitive head of the Church, it would stand to reason that he would have been the one to write the largest portion of scripture, not Paul or even John. When taking into consideration the structure proposed by the Vatican, one would have to assume that these two men were but members of the Magesterium -- they were not the Pope. Nevertheless, they were the primary sources of doctrine in the early church.
In addition, Paul, by his own admission, was by far the most studious worker for the Kingdom, thanks to the grace of God. He also appeared to be among the most humble:
For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me (1 Corinthians 15:9-10).
This closely resembles the criteria outlined in Jesus’ speech to the apostles during the Last Supper in Luke 22: 21 - 34. Using those guidelines, Paul, not Peter, was the more suitable candidate for the title (if a title needed to be conferred) ‘the greatest’ among them.
d.) God Appointed Both Paul and Peter
In the book of Galatians, Paul recounts the day when this commission which had been given to him by God,
was acknowledged by none other than Peter himself:
But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me: But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles ), And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision (Galatians 2:6-9). [my emphasis]
One will notice in this passage that he explained that each of them were committed their respective offices: Paul was committed to the heathens and Peter to the circumcised. Without a doubt, Peter was used of the Holy Spirit very effectively among the Jewish people, whereas Paul was used most effectually among the Gentile population. Paul goes on to say that Peter (Cephas) , James, and John all blessed Paul’s calling to the preaching of the Gospel to the heathens and they should continue their ministry to those of the circumcision (2:9).
This actually affirms Peter as the one who was to go out and preach to the circumcised (the Jewish), but then goes on to also affirm that Paul had been likewise appointed by God to preach to all of the uncircumcised (the Gentiles).
There are many who would contend with this assertion, however, for a couple of reasons:
a.) Some might say that the evidence in Galatians is 'inadmissible' because it was spoken by Paul, regarding himself, rather than by Peter. Realistically, though, this letter to the Galatians would have had to have been seen by Peter and, if not he himself, then by one of his proponents. Should there have been a dispute in this regard, it is inevitable that this would have been addressed at length by Peter in one of his epistles or indeed, even at another council, not unlike the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15.
b.) In Acts 15:7, when Peter addressed the Jerusalem Council, he stated that he had been chosen by God to be His mouthpiece among the Gentiles:
“And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: "Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe” (Acts 15:7). (my emphasis]
These two passages seem to be in complete opposition to one another. On one hand, Paul is saying that he was commissioned not only by God, but also by Peter, to go out and preach to the Gentiles. Peter, on the other hand, testified that God chose him to speak among the Gentiles. The answer to this dilemma, may be found much earlier in Acts chapters 10 and 11, when God commissioned Peter to go specifically to the house of Cornelius, in order that he and his entire household might hear the entirety of the Gospel. This commissioning did not give him exclusivity in this area of preaching. In fact, from the context of the passage itself, Peter was this commissioned because he had formerly believed that only the Jewish people were to be preached to. In the traditional Jewish paradigm, of which Peter was a part, the Gentiles were considered to be filthy and unclean. By using Peter to go to Cornelius’ household, God succeeded in not only changing Peter’s beliefs about who the Gospel was meant for, but also afforded other Jewish believers this insight (cf. Acts 11:1 ff.. and Acts 15:7 ff.). The reference in Acts 15:7, then, is not one pertaining to the lasting commission of Peter to the Gentiles, per se, but is rather the recounting of an extraordinary occurrence, designed to convince those who had formerly disagreed, that the Gospel was meant for all men, Jews and Gentiles alike.
Logically then, if the Church were to claim any of the apostles as their precursors, both Peter and Paul should have been chosen. This is because, as it has already been mentioned, Paul was given the same level of authority as Peter was -- Peter even recognized this fact. As it stands, however, the Church has only accepted Peter. Because of this, it should logically follow that the RCC should be only reaching out to the Jews even today, since they have chosen only to follow Peter and not both.
e.) Peter Sent Out, Not The One Sending Out
Furthermore, in the book of Acts, some of the apostles sent Peter and John to Samaria:
"Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John . . . . “ (Acts 8:14).
Had Peter been the Head of the visible Church, as the Roman Catholic Church asserts, then Peter would have been the one to delegate those who were to go on the trip. Further, had he gone, it would have been because he had appointed himself as one of the delegates. As it stands, however, he was simply told to go by some of the other apostles.
This assumption is made because historically, the spirit behind the Papal throne, has and continues to be one of exercising authority in an aggressive, rather than a passive manner, whereas the life and ministry of Christ consisted of a life of service. Because of this, if nothing else, it is highly unlikely that Peter, were he the first pope, would have conceded to simply ‘being sent’ by others in a position of lesser authority. [28]
5.) Matthew 16:18 Examined
For many centuries, the Catholic Church has essentially ‘hung’ its claim to Primacy on a single scripture. In regard to Matthew 16:18, The Amplified Bible says:
I tell you that you are Peter [Petros, masculine, a large piece of rock], and on this rock [petra, feminine, a huge rock like Gibraltar] I will build My church . . . . [29] (Matthew 16:18) [my emphasis]
The name ‘Peter’ is translated as "a large piece of rock," but the Church was to be built on petra which means "a huge rock like Gibraltar". Additionally, ‘Petros’ is a masculine, not a feminine derivative, as ‘petra’ is. The misapplication of this verse has led people to erroneously believe that the church was built on Peter, who was reputed to have been "the visible head of the church", not to mention the first Pope. Moreover, the application of this misguided belief about Peter from Mt. 16:18 has resulted in a misnomer, regarding how one may receive salvation.
B.) Evidence Compiled
In summary, it is not possible to arrive at the correct interpretation of Mt. 16:18 without considering the aforementioned facts of Peter's life and doctrines. Sadly, when one considers the sum total of the evidence, it must be stated that the distortion of Christ’s words found in Matthew 16:18 has led to the spiritual destruction of multitudes over the centuries.
APPENDICES |INDEX| BACK | PART III | CEPHAS FILES
Please tell your friends about our website: http://www.cephasministry.com