The Catholic Church has had an unbroken line of Papal succession, beginning with the Apostle Peter, continuing on to Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus...and all the way down to Benedict XVI. All in all, there have been 264 successors to Peter. (You can find a list of all the Popes here.)
Some people say that there was nothing really different about the Apostle Peter. He was simply one of Jesus' disciples. Why would Jesus give him any special authority? Let's look at what Scripture has to say about all of this.
Matthew 16:17 ~ And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven.
v. 18 ~ And I say also 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.
v. 19 ~ And I will give unto thee [singular] the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
In this passage, Christ is doing three main things. 1) He renames "Simon", Peter. 2) He gives Peter the "keys of the Kingdom". 3) He gives Peter the power to "loose and bind".
Before I go any further, I need to clarify one thing. Some scholars claim that when Jesus says "upon this rock I will build my church", He is not referring to Peter, but to Himself. The Greek word for Peter is Petros which means "little rock". The Greek word used for "rock" is petra which is the more common form for the word rock. These scholars say that Jesus was essentially communicating this: Thou art "a tiny pebble", but upon this "massive rock" I will build my Church. There are two problems with this argument. First of all, petra is the feminine form for rock. Jesus wouldn't name Peter with a feminine form of a word. He simply used the masculine form which is petros. Secondly, it is very unlikely that Jesus was originally speaking in Greek to his disciples. It is held by the vast majority of Biblical scholars that Jesus used Aramaic. In Aramaic, there is only one word for rock and that is kepha. So, what Jesus basically said was, Thou art kepha and upon this kepha I will build my church. Jesus was clearly referring to Peter.
The "keys of the Kingdom" symbolize authority.
Isaiah 22:20 ~ And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah:
v. 21 ~ And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
v. 22 ~ And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
In this passage, four things are given to Eliakim. 1) He is clothed with a robe. 2) The government is put in his hands. 3) He shall be a father to the house of Judah. 4) He is given keys. Keys were a sign of authority. They imparted power to those who owned them -- the power to bind and loose, just as Christ gave Peter the authority to bind and loose in Matthew 16. He was also called "a father to the house of Judah". The word pope means father. The pope also wears the robe of a priest and has authority in the magisterium. Do you see a parallell here?
Matthew 16 is not the only passage that supports the idea the Peter was given authority.
John 21:15 ~ So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, LORD; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
v. 16 ~ He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, LORD; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
v. 17 ~ He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, LORD, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
I could expound on this, but I'm going to move on...
In nearly every place in the Bible when the apostles are named, Peter is named first among them. [Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13, etc.] The apostles are also referred to as a group as "Peter and his companions" [Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7]. He speaks on behalf of the apostles numerous times [Matthew 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, John 6:69, etc.] Peter takes clear authoritative lead in the book of Acts [1:13-26, 2:14, 2:41, 3:6-7, 5:1-11, 8:21, 10:44-46, 15:7, 15:19, etc.] and his name appears 195 times in the Scriptures -- more than all of the other Apostles combined.
One might say that Peter was given special authority while on earth, but that wouldn't mean that he would have successors. This idea is also unbiblical:
Acts 1:24 ~ And they prayed, and said, Thou LORD, which knowest the hearts of all men, show whether of these two thou hast chosen,
v. 25 ~ That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas [Iscariot] by which transgression fell, that he might go to his own place.
v. 26 ~ And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.
The Apostles, when their number was down to eleven, found someone to replace the vacancy that Judas Iscariot left. That was the natural and obvious thing to do.
In my next post I will try to explain the idea of Papal Infallibility...
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Comments
Posted by thequietone I ask this because I know there are Protestants, sadly, who believe that Catholics are not Christians. I was just wondering if there are Catholics that believe similarly that Protestants are not Christians.
Thank you for your blog, and thank you for answering my question!
~ Katie
Posted by thecatholicapologist Thanks for your comment! In answer to your question, Catholics in general view Protestants as "separate brethren". I'm sure there are some Catholics out there who believe that Protestants are not Christians, but as a whole, the Church accepts Protestants as brethren in Christ.
I think the reason many Protestants view Catholicism as a "different religion" is because Protestantism really began "protesting" the Church.
Thanks again for your comment! If you have any more questions feel free to ask! :)
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
Posted by Allison Matthew 6:17 is often interpreted to mean that the rock of Peter's confession and ones like it are the foundation of the church.
Posted by Songwriter Danya <><
Posted by thecatholicapologist Allison: Matthew 6:17 is often interpreted to mean that the rock of Peter's confession and ones like it are the foundation of the church.
--------
Songwriter: I agree with Allison. I believe it was the statement, that faith-based belief, that would be the foundation, it was the statement that hell would not overcome.
--------
That’s interesting, but I don’t really see why you would interpret it that way. Think about it. Peter’s name wasn’t always Peter. Before, he was always called Simon. It’s sort of like Jesus is renaming him, much in the same way he renamed Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel, etc. In fact, there’s no historical evidence that there even was anyone else named Peter before that point (I could be wrong, but I’ve read some Biblical scholars and historians who have said the same thing. I haven’t scoured every historical document prior to Christ’s life, so I really don’t know absolutely for sure ;) Why would Jesus rename Peter “rock” and then turn around and call something else “rock”? That’d be kind of like saying, “You are turkey and upon this turkey I shall build my Thanksgiving feast”. Was he referring to me? After all, he called me “turkey” (not A turkey, just turkey -- like it was my name or something). Or was he referring to the turkey in the barnyard outside? It’d be kind of weird for him to call me “turkey” just out of the blue and then talk about building his Thanksgiving feast on some other turkey. Not like I would turn into a literal turkey and be cooked and eaten…but you get what I’m saying. (I hope!) LOL
Why would you interpret Peter’s confession to be the “rock”? I’m interested in seeing your reasoning behind that. ;)
Thanks for your input, both of you! :) I appreciate your comments.
Pax Christi,
~the Catholic apologist
PS I will be getting back to you on purgatory, Danya, once exams are over and done with! Same goes with Allison on the doctrine of transubstantiation. Sorry it’s taking me so long!
