GREGORY VII STYLE POPES UNKNOWN IN EARLY CHURCH
Have we much evidence that people in the early Church interpreted “You are Peter
and on this rock I will build my Church” from Matthew 16 to make Peter a
Catholic style pope? The pope role became more and more autocratic and what
became a honorific role turned into an authority one. The first functional pope
was probably Gregory VII who died in 1085 who was the first to make it clear
that no law was going to overrule him. The first pope to become a truly divinely
chosen one was Pius IX. Now the pope had the power to speak Jesus' truth and was
more than a God-appointed earthly head of the Church.
The fact that Mark has a similar story to Matthew and nothing about the rock
stuff suggests that Peter was not the head of the Church. You don’t omit stories
like that. Plus Mark does all he can to portray Peter in a bad light - proving
that the early Church claim that the gospel was based on Peter's teachings and
reminiscences is false and that he didn't respect Peter. He certainly did not
think Peter was anything like a pope! Luke wrote after Matthew and didn’t put in
the rock material either. Nobody would repeat what others say and then leave out
something so important – unless it wasn’t important. If it wasn’t important then
Jesus did not make Peter a pope and the succeeding popes the head of the Church.
If the gospel of Mark came from Peter’s preaching as most Catholics believe then
when the episode is in it but without the exaltation of Peter then this is a
serious reason for asking if the words Matthew reported, “Thou art Peter etc”
were said at all. It wouldn’t make any sense for Mark to leave that out if he
was a disciple of Peter and it was true.
The disciples disputed among themselves about which of them was the greatest or
the leader some time after Jesus called Simon Peter and referred to the rock he
would build his Church on proving that they knew Jesus did not make Peter head
of the Church or was not planning on it either. In Luke, this dispute started
after the last supper long after the Thou art Peter incident (22:24). Jesus
replies that instead of a having a ruler among them the one that wants to be the
greatest should do the most serving and act like the youngest and needing the
most advice from the others. He meant that they should all strive for that – no
one in particular. There was to be no infallible pope or papal monarch. If you
wanted to be the rock the church was built on you had to lay such notions aside
and become it by your serving of others and humility not by papal election. You
were to draw no attention to yourself by advertising your goodness but were to
work in humility. If Peter had been the rock, the way is now open for a new one
among the disciples. It would be the one who seemed to be the least and the one
who wanted his virtue seen only by God not man. He was to be an invisible rock.
Acts 10 has unclean food representing Gentiles. Now God makes this food clean. This is not about the food laws at all. It uses them as a device to get the message across that nobody from now on must call any person unclean or common just because they are not a Jew.
A proper reading of Acts 10 is needed. Some say that Peter got a
revelation that unclean foods were now clean and that he made it
binding on the Church as a Pope.
Now if Peter were a Pope when did he take office? Even if Jesus made
Peter a Pope, it does not mean that Peter was ready then.
Catholicism recognises somebody can be elected Pope but they
postpone taking their authority. So was Peter a Pope then?
Peter in Acts 10 met a devout believer in God called Cornelius. Cornelius made
reverence to Peter and Peter forbade it saying he was a mere man. Peter had to
account for accepting Cornelius into the Church to the circumcised Christians.
He pleaded his case instead of saying, "Jesus made me head of the Church thus
what I did was right." See Acts 11. Peter was not a very good prophet never mind
pope! He thought he was dreaming when it turned out an angel was helping him
escape from prison! See Acts 12. Some rock! How could a man like that be trusted
when he said he had visions of Jesus? He didn't know how to distinguish between
dreams and fantasy and visions! How could Peter's faith make him a rock for it
was nothing to write home about!
The Epistle of James which demands that everybody be treated as equals at
meetings whether they are rich or poor indicates that there were to be no popes
in the early Church. If the pope came to a meeting he would be given a
comfortable chair even if it meant the poor person has to sit on the floor. That
is the very thing that James condemns severely (2:1-4).
Paul in Galatians 2 wrote that he challenged Peter for refusing to eat with
Gentiles. The Jews did not eat with Gentiles and the early Church abandoned this
bigotry as the faith was supposed to be for all nations. So Peter was doing
something extremely serious. The Catholic Church says that the episode does not
prove that popes can err in matters of faith and morals only that they can sin.
They say Paul was not challenging Peter's doctrine but his lifestyle. But in
fact, though it is true that the Church holds that popes can sin, it is not
clear that it was just Peter's lifestyle that was the problem. A pope can use
example to teach doctrine - it doesn't have to be verbally expressed. When Paul
in that chapter referred to Peter as an alleged pillar of the Church there was
more to it than a mere criticism of his lifestyle. And indeed Paul complains
that Gentile believers were practically forced by Peter to discriminate against
Gentiles and act like Jews implying that Peter must have taught that it was now
Christian doctrine that Jewish racism be maintained. And in Paul's speech
against Peter he never mentions Peter's sins but concentrates on doctrinal
matters and on how the law of the Jews does not apply. It was a doctrinal
problem.
If Peter had really been pope and the rock in the Catholic sense would Paul have
publicly made a show of him and urged dissent from him in Galatians 2:11-14? The
procedure with popes and kings is to have a word with them and try to win them
over by peace and in private rather than just leap in and attack them. And
especially when they are guilty of obvious stupidity - it is hard to believe
that the Church would have taken what Peter did that seriously. Paul did not
regard Peter as the focus of unity in the Church when he engineered a revolt
against him. Catholics say that Peter did not err in doctrine but he did for the
Jewish practice of not eating with Gentiles which Peter supported was a
doctrinal issue and the pope teaches by action as much as by speech. If Pope
Benedict XVI would never teach any heresy in speech but nods approvingly when
some heretic speaks would that mean Benedict was not teaching heresy just
because he didn’t open his mouth? So Paul opposed Peter in doctrine. Paul wrote
that he saw that Peter was not being straight with the gospel (implying Peter
spoke for heresy) and he told Peter in front of everybody that Peter was
compelling Gentiles to live like Jews. Clearly then Peter was teaching heresy by
speaking up for it and compelling people to become heretics.
Catholics argue that Paul wouldn't have mentioned the episode unless Peter was
his superior and he was reprimanding him. They turn it into a proof that Peter
was a pope or near-pope. But Paul said a few other things about Peter. And there
is no hint anywhere in Paul's writings that he regarded Peter anything other
than as an equal.
The Book of Revelation symbolises the apostles being the foundation of the
Church as a whole by saying that there will be twelve foundations for the city
of the saved and each foundation has the name of an apostle on it. If rock means
foundation then there are twelve foundations and Peter was the first rock but
not the superior one. Jesus made the others rocks later. Or you could say there
is one rock if you group all the apostles together. Revelation means that they
are the rocks by their testimony. Christ was the rock in the supreme sense and
in the sense that he makes the Church and unites it. Jesus never indicated that
if Peter was the rock he was to be the only rock!
Jesus said he would give the keys of the kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Papias
wrote that Peter opened the gates of Heaven in Rome by his preaching and his
keys (page 33, Secrets of Romanism). The keys have to do with saving by his
preaching of the gospel like any minister could save not ruling. This may have
been written in 140 AD.
The fathers who did believe Peter was the rock did not all make it clear that
they thought Peter was the head and boss of the Church. Any that did, gave no
evidence that they had researched their statements thoroughly so they have no
weight (page 51, St Peter and Rome).
Seventeen early Fathers, including Jerome and Augustine and Origen declared that
Peter was the rock which we must remember is still not enough to prove that they
believed in the papacy and if they had then they would have excommunicated those
other fathers who denied the papacy. Later in life, Jerome stated clearly that
the bishop of Rome has no more authority than any other bishop in the Church
(page 5, The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments). He also stated
that Christ was the rock and that apostles were each rocks too (page 10, The
Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments). So Peter was declared the rock
for he was the only one who saw that Jesus was the Son of God and the other
eleven became rocks later as soon as they exercised holy faith. The apostle John
was as much a rock as Peter was. So Jesus did not mean to make Peter the only
rock. A house can be built on several rocks. Later in life, Augustine apologised
for his previous view that Peter was the rock and started saying that the rock
was Jesus alone (page 10, The Primitive Faith and Roman Catholic Developments).
Eight claimed that the rock was all the apostles and Peter had spoken for them
and represented them making them all the rock. Jesus would then have meant:
“Because you all agree that I am the Christ you are Peter the Rock because you
are all one rock and on this rock I will build my Church”, or, “You Peter are
called the rock because you represent the rock of the apostles, which is the
apostles and yourself”. Even Pope Leo the Great believed that Peter’s faith was
the rock. This position was the best supported. The Roman Catholic scholar
Launoy found that seventeen claimed that Peter was the rock and forty-four
claimed that it was Peter’s faith and eight thought it was the apostles
including Peter so that is eighty-five testimonies against seventeen (page 4,
The Petrine Claims of Rome). It is true that none of the early fathers gave any
hint of believing in the papacy (page 348, Vicars of Christ).
Catholicism lies about having grave reverence for tradition and the pope knows fine well his position is flimsy.