The Papacy (or lack of) in New Testament Christianity
I. Introduction
One of the historical greatest divisions in Christendom has been theological differences over the understanding of the papacy. There are remarkable historians and theologians who both support and oppose the institution of the papacy. The debates concerning the papacy are also more complicated than just Roman Catholics vs. Protestants. There are Roman Catholic historians who believe that the papacy as we now know it, didn't always exist. Likewise, there are Protestant historians who believe that there was some sort of papacy in the Early Church.
Others, such as Eastern Orthodox, will sometimes acknowledge that the bishop of Rome historically held an unmatched place of honor in the church, but this was short of him having papal supremacy over the East.
It's not easy to debate and discuss the topic of the papacy as there are so many ways that Matthew 16, one of the key passages used for the papacy, has been read among various Christian sects. While many fundamentalist Christians would deny the papacy as being Biblical altogether, this is not necessarily the case for Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, and Protestants. Nevertheless, the fundamentalists are dead wrong, and some sort of understanding of a legitimate papacy in the Early Church will be demonstrated in a later post.
There have been many historical and theological misunderstandings of the papacy between both Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. Some Eastern Orthodox have wrongly believed that Pope Innocent III told the Fourth Crusade to sack Constantinople (1204) which he never did. Likewise, some Roman Catholics are guilty of overgeneralizing all who disagree with the papacy, as many who disagree with the papacy, disagree with the theology backing it for various reasons.
An understanding of the papacy rests on a belief in Apostolic Succession. Many fundamentalists deny this doctrine altogether. However, even many who affirm Apostolic Succession, such as many Anglicans and Old Catholics, as well as all Eastern Orthodox, still often have a different view concerning the papacy specifically.
The debates concerning the papacy primarily concern our understanding of the Old and New Testaments, church history, historical theology, and Christian philosophy. Since Biblical theology starts with the Old Testament, however, this is where this post will begin.
II. The Prophets in Old Testament Theology
Many Roman Catholics see the connection between the prophet and king in the Old Testament to the pope (new prophet) and Christ (king) in the New Testament.
The Old Testament does bear witness to the prophets beholding the keys of their king. In this regard, Roman Catholics are demonstrating the connection between the Old Testament prophet and king. The prophet was himself a steward of the king, which they argue is the same concerning the papacy and Christ Himself.
Jesus, Peter, & and the Keys, by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess, is possibly one of the best books written about the papacy from a Roman Catholic perspective. As discussed in the book, ''Binding and Loosing'' was an important set of words long before the New Testament. In Matthew 16, Christ uses phrases such as ''binding and loosing.'' For those who wonder as to Christ's meaning, they need to turn to the Old Testament and Jewish literature.
Ralphe Earle, Th. D was a former professor of New Testament at Nazarene Theological Seminary. Commenting on binding and loosing in his Beacon Bible Commentary, he said the following, which I have quoted from Jesus, Peter & and the Keys (55):
''Even more striking [than the keys] is Jesus' statement that whatever Peter bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever he loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven. What is meant by bind and loose? M' Neile explains: '''Bind''' and ''loose'' appear to represent the Aramaic...technical terms for the verdict of the Law who, on the strength of his expert knowledge oral tradition, declared some action or thing ''bound'' i. e. forbidden, or ''loosed'' i. e. permitted.' In other words, Peter would give decisions, based on the teachings of Jesus, which would be bound in heaven; that is, honored by God.''
In other words, the Roman Catholic apologists, see the quote listed above from a New Testament scholar, as evidence of the papacy. Earle is pointing out that ''binding'' and ''loosing'' was a phrase in Jewish literature concerning a Jewish leading others into correct belief. Since Christ later used these words in Matthew 16 to Peter, the reasoning the Roman Catholics followed, that Peter was gifted with infallibility by Christ.
Does this mean that Peter was infallible? Let us read more below.
III. Jesus and Matthew 16
Many Roman Catholics point to Matthew 16 as evidence of the papacy, where they say Scripture proves the papacy. They say that when Christ told Peter (and others dispute whether or not these words were to Peter) that he is the ''rock'', that this proves that the church is built on Peter and therefore, the papacy is supported by Scripture.
Ironically, if this were the interpretation of the apostles, they seemed to have never demonstrated this in the New Testament. While Peter did confirm the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, it was James of Jerusalem who summoned the elders, not Peter.
It has been debated who the rock in Matthew 16 is. While Augustine of Hippo believed that the rock was Peter in his earlier writings, as shown in his Restractations, he thought it was possible that the rock was Christ. Even if we believe that the rock of Matthew 16 is Peter, however, there are major problems with the papacy in this passage.
When Christ hands Peter the Keys of the Kingdom in Matthew 16, we later learn that all the apostles exercised those keys in Matthew 18. If anything, the keys were a demonstration of episcopalian power exercised by multiple church leaders, rather than one pope.
But perhaps other passages of the New Testament can enlighten us to the meaning of Matthew 16? After all, would the apostles not know best?
Nowhere in the New Testament do we see Peter recognized with the authority or honor that later popes would.
Peter called himself an elder (1 Peter 5: 1). Even if were just being humble, he never claimed of himself having supremacy over all the New Testament churches (nor did anyone else in the New Testament Church).
Paul corrected Peter in Galatians 2 and while Peter was not defining a dogma for all in the church to believe in this chapter, imagine any cardinal or bishop today have any right to even rebuke the pope and get away with it. Much has changed in two thousand years.
In all of the Pauline Epistles, Paul nowhere speaks of Peter's authority over the church. The closest that he comes is calling Peter ''Cephas'' (Galatians 2: 11) a unique title that Christ gave only to Peter, or the original twelve apostles. Still, stretching this title out to defend papal supremacy is one of the most amazing stretches from Scripture that I've ever heard.
When Paul described church offices in Romans 15, 1 Timothy 3, and Titus 1, why did he never refer to the papacy? Why do Roman Catholics believe in this institution, which at best, has little scriptural support, and at worst, is contrary to Scripture?
IV: Historical Problems with Peter's Papacy
There are historical problems with belief in Peter as the pope of Christendom. For one, it has been debated whether or not Peter even went to Rome. Historical accounts do confirm, however, that Peter went to Antioch and was the first bishop there.
Medieval historian Norman F. Cantor believed that there is no evidence that Peter ever went to Rome. His thought is shared by some Evangelicals and even some Eastern Orthodox. Nevertheless, several of the church fathers did claim that Peter went to Rome, and this is also the view of Byzantine scholar, A. Edward Siecienski.
Scripture never says about whether or not Peter went to Rome. Galatians 2: 11-13 does say that he went to Antioch. If anything, the church leaders of Antioch have greater claims of papal supremacy over the church than do the bishops of Rome.
A. Edward Siecienski, rightly points out in his The Papacy and the Orthodox, that Pope Leo the Great fifth century) was the first pope in history to have understood himself as having jurisdiction and supremacy over the churches of the East (as well as Sicily). This was a radical change from earlier Christian practice, where local bishops governed the New Testament Church, and not that of a pope.
Perhaps one of the strongest pieces of historical evidence against the papacy is the fact that all seven of the ecumenical councils agreed on by both East and West were summoned by the Byzantine Emperors, not the popes. In fact, the bishops of Rome were not even present at any of these councils. Likewise, during the seventh through with centuries, many popes were appointed by the emperor himself, yet by 800 AD, Pope Leo the Great crowned Charlemagne as the true Roman emperor, and this set the pattern for the popes as understanding themselves as having authority even over kings.
Certainly, long before the so-called great schism of 1054 (a date that some historians dispute), many throughout Christendom did not accept the papacy.
Papal Supremacy became greater and greater over time. By the eleventh century, many popes such as Gregory VII and Innocent III, claimed that they even had the power to depose kings and emperors from power. As if Papal Supremacy was not enough, though, Vatican I would later teach that the pope is alone infallible (even without the consent of a church council) when he declares a doctrine ex cathedra on faith and morals, that is binding on the church.
For claiming to be the church of faith and morals that never change, the Roman Catholic Church has no historical evidence for belief in papal infallibility in the first centuries of the church. Some of them will concede this and claim that the Catholic Church is infallible but the Fathers aren't. However, their reasoning is inconsistent. They use the Fathers when supporting the theology of the church, which they say goes back to the apostles but reject the opinions of the Fathers when they contradict their current leadership. This leads to logical problems as they assume the Fathers rightly point us both historically and theologically to the Catholic Church being the true church, yet then deny them when those same fathers differ fro their claims.
Augustine believed that the Virgin Mary was born with original sin. So did Ambrose and Albert, Aquinas and Bernard. Yet in the nineteenth century, Pope Pius IX, declared her immaculate conception a dogma for all in the church to have to believe. The same Roman Catholics who say that Aquinas got the Immaculate Conception wrong, are the same Roman Catholics who will point to Aquinas on topics like justification and say that his views on the topic are older than that of Luther.
To make matters even worse, they don't even consistently follow the magisterium of the past. For example, they reject even the fifteenth-century Council of Constance's teaching that the church is above the papacy. They then read the past (including past popes) according to the dictates of whatever the current pope teaches.
In short, let us so far examine the following assumptions proposed by modern Roman Catholics:
1. That Peter was the pope of the New Testament era Church.
2. That Peter went to Rome (a big historical debate).
3. That Peter's successors inherited his authority.
4. That Peter's successors in Rome, not Antioch, inherited his papal supremacy
5. That the papacy remained and has always remained with supremacy over the church, long after Peter, despite evidence from Eastern Orthodox theologian, A. Edward Siecienski, showing that many of the eastern bishops at the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize Pop Leo the Great as having jurisdiction in their realms.
6. That the pope speaks infallibly for the church when Vatican I's teachings concerning his infallibility were not dogmatic teachings of the Catholic Church until Vatican I in 1870, a church council never agreed upon by the rest of Christendom.
7. That belief in Apostolic Succession necessarily entails one also believing in papal supremacy (which Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans reject).
8. That past teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which are perceived to contradict new teachings only means fault on the interpreter and not the Roman Catholic magisterium. This leads to no one being able to understand for themself what is true and false except what the leadership teaches...but, even that requires a judgment. It is true that Protestants interpret Scripture, but it is also an interpretation of a church council to say that the bishops got it right or wrong.
9. They assume that past quotes of church fathers concerning Peter automatically benefit their own view of the papacy (without taking historical and theological understandings of the first-century church into account).
10. They assume the fathers and councils sometimes got it right, as long as what they say backs whatever the current magisterium teaches. They then assume that their magisterium and not that of Eastern Orthodoxy or Oriental Orthodoxy is the one magisterium described in the New Testament.
They also ignore that the Council of Constance taught that the church collectively is higher than the papacy. While many Roman Catholic apologists see this council's documents on the issue as irrelevant (considering that they were not ratified by a pope), their belief in rejecting these documents is also based on their belief that a council's documents must be ratified by a pope for them to be true (which many past Eastern and Western theologians denied).
Ironically, much of the support of the papacy in the past was not always based on Matthew 16. Many popes appealed to the historical document as known as The Donation of Constantine, which asserts that Constantine gave the authority of his emperorship to the bishops of Rome. Hence, popes used this as support for their papal supremacy over Christendom. This was especially the case for Pope Innocent III, for example, who referred to this document in support of his papal supremacy.
The Donation of Constantine is now known to be a forgery, however. This was investigated and learned during the Renaissance. Thus, one of the main arguments historically used for the papacy, is no longer a beneficial one, even though the papacy has used it to extend its over Christendom for centuries.
V. The Reformation and the Papacy
The Protestants weren't the first to deny papal supremacy. Many Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholics, and other Christians had denied it long before Luther wrote the Ninety-Five Thesis in 1517. Unfortunately, many have been led to believe that everyone accepted and believed in the papacy until the Protestant Reformation.
During the Protestant Reformation, there was universal agreement among all Protestants (even among those who killed one another), that the papacy was butterfly flawed, devoid of Scriptural support for claims over power, and distinct from the once bishops of Rome in the ancient church. John Calvin, for instance, believed that Gregory the Great (sixth century) was the last good bishop of Rome.
Many of the reformers saw the papacy as the Antichrist foretold in Scripture. Whether or not their views on this were right is too extensive to discuss here. However, they saw the papacy as misleading millions into giving money for indulgences and the observations relics (some of which, were clearly false). Many of them also believed that the papacy wanted to constrain the masses from the availability of Scripture (even after the invention of the printing press) and keep the common people in need of the papacy.
Some Roman Catholics wish to accuse Protestants of rebellion, schism, and disobedience to the pope. How can one be obedient to an unlawful office, however? Imagine the governor of California telling the governor of New York how to govern. The former would have no right to such a claim. Likewise, for many of the reasons mentioned in this post, both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox rightly point out that the papacy as it is currently known, has broken itself from apostolic teachings and many of the popes are likely guilty of breaking the first commandment, by pacing themselves in a place of honor and authority over the church, that only Christ shares.
While many Roman Catholics claim that Protestants are in disobedience for not submitting to the magisterium that Christ established in Matthew 16, what makes them so certain that the magisterium in Matthew 16, is their own, and not that of the Orthodox Church? Their theology is based on numerous assumptions, which all fit in their favor.
VI: Conclusion
I have demonstrated both historical and Biblical problems with the papacy. Although many books on both sides of the aisle have written about this topic, I wanted to provide a brief post on why Protestants faithfully hold to Scripture in rejecting the claims of both papal supremacy and papal infallibility.
While the connection between Peter and the Jewish rabbis concerning binding and loosing is an interesting argument for the papacy, one must still conclude whether or not this authority was just for Peter (as D. A. Carson affirms), or if Peter even went to Rome, and if he did, what Biblical and historical evidence do we have to prove that the church leaders there, inherited his power when those in Antioch did not?
Furthermore, if Peter was being compared to the authority of the Jewish rabbis, were they themselves infallible? If this were the case, then we may very well reject the New Testament and embrace Judaism as many of the Jewish priesthood which is Christ and the Apostles.
Finally, the keys were exercised by all the apostles in Matthew 18. If anything, all the apostles were gifted with infallibility and if this authority was transmitted to successors, then a would be the general bishops of the church, not the pope alone.
While some Roman Catholic apologists will point to quotes from John of Damascus and others to prove Papal Supremacy, many Eastern theologians held to Papal Primacy, not Papal Supremacy. And even if some of them did endorse Papal Supremacy, most of the theologians who endorsed this view lived during and after the Council of Chalcedon (fifth century). There is particularly little information in the first four centuries of church history to justify papal supremacy. For example, Clement of Rome, traditionally regarded as the fourth pope by Roman Catholics, actually called James the Just the ''bishop of bishops'' in one of his writings. In other words, he saw the bishop of Jerusalem as having superiority over the rest*1.
For political and social reasons, however, in time Constantinople and Rome would supersede both Antioch and Jerusalem as the two leading churches of Christendom, yet none of this is based on the New Testament. Constantinople and Rome largely grew in theological influence due to the fact that it was in these cities that many of the emperors resided. Indeed, Constantniple is never even mentioned in the New Testament, and Paul's letter to the Romans never mentioned Peter the Apostle at all (little alone as the bishop of Rome).
Whether or not Clement was the successor of Peter in Rome, or not, however, he did not understand himself as having papal supremacy over the rest of the bishops in Christendom. If anything, he recognized the bishop of Jerusalem as holding a place of honor that he did not.
In later centuries, Rome became gradually seen as the highest bishopric seat. This was largely due to the city's political influence on the empire.
Even as late as Gregory the Great (6th-7th century), this bishop of Rome understood any bishop who claimed superiority over the rest as antichrist*2. Tragically, the bishops of Rome, especially c. 1100 on, affirmed such power.
The fundamentalist Christians are wrong to reject all roles of the bishop of Rome in the church, when Clement of Rome, and many others were important church leaders in history. There was indeed a unique role that Peter shared in the New Testament, but it was certainly short of what we now think of as being the modern papacy. Read Early Christianity and see the early history of the many faithful bishops of Rome to the Orthodox faith.
Scripture is clear. So is history. Many Roman Catholic apologists may very selectively isolate certain quotes of the church fathers to defend the papacy but history is very clear. The papacy, as we know it today, was unknown among the apostles and the first-century church.
Notes:
I agree with your conclusion. This has been one of my favorite posts. This topic has always interested me. Thanks for your research and ability to make this even more interesting! Dad
ReplyDelete