The Roman Church's use of the title "Catholic," derived from the Greek word for "universal," presents a historical and theological tension. While undoubtedly an ancient and globally significant communion, its claim to universality is challenged by the historical reality that the Bishop of Rome was initially understood as a co-equal patriarch alongside the leaders of other major Christian centers like Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, particularly during the era of the first seven Ecumenical Councils (ending 787 CE). The later assertion of Roman primacy contributed significantly to the tragic divisions within Christendom, leading first to the Great Schism with the Eastern Orthodox and subsequently to the fractures of the Protestant Reformation, meaning the Roman Church has arguably never represented the entirety of the universal Church.
Despite this complex history, a distinct doctrine of papal supremacy and infallibility developed within the Roman tradition, articulated in its Catechism (cf. CCC 889-892), which posits the Pope as the supreme, unifying head of the Church, possessing a unique, divinely assisted teaching authority, even infallibility when speaking ex cathedra. This perspective often leads to viewing full communion with the Pope as the standard for authentic Church membership, regarding other Christian bodies as existing in varying degrees of separation. These specific and relatively late-developing Roman claims regarding papal authority, however, face significant challenges when examined through the lenses of Scripture, early Church history, and broader theological interpretation.
It seems the Roman Church has seized the title "Catholic" (Greek for "Universal") for itself, despite never representing the entire Church. The Roman Bishop was co-equal with other Archbishops in the Church, such as Constantinople, Alexandria, and Jerusalem through the era of the Ecumenical Councils (ended 787 CE). As soon as the Bishop of Rome sought to seize the primacy of the Church for himself in the 800's-1000's, the Roman Church excluded and persecuted her Orthodox Siblings. And later, after the Western Reformation in the 1500's, the Roman Church excluded and persecuted her Protestant Children. Thus, the Roman Church, while large and ancient, has never been "Catholic" in the sense of Universal.
Nevertheless, this has not stopped the Roman Church from inventing a dogma of the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope (the Bishop of Rome). While the Pope is the legitimate bishop of Rome, the unique and novel Roman claims for the Pope are well outlined by the Catholic Catechism (numbers refer to paragraph numbering in the Catechism):
CCC 889 In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. By a "supernatural sense of faith" the People of God, under the guidance of the Church's living Magisterium, "unfailingly adheres to this faith."
CCC 890 The mission of the Magisterium is linked to the definitive nature of the covenant established by God with his people in Christ. It is this Magisterium's task to preserve God's people from deviations and defections and to guarantee them the objective possibility of professing the true faith without error. Thus, the pastoral duty of the Magisterium is aimed at seeing to it that the People of God abides in the truth that liberates. To fulfill this service, Christ endowed the Church's shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. the exercise of this charism takes several forms:
CCC 891 "The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.... the infallibility promised to the Church is also present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter's successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium," above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine "for belief as being divinely revealed," and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions "must be adhered to with the obedience of faith." This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.
CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent" which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.
We may note on Paragraph 891: This novel idea of infallibility was defined, not by the Pope, but by the First Vatican Council I: DS 3074, between 1869-1870 CE. It has been amply noted by Orthodox and Protestant Christians that this is a contradiction in claims: If the Pope is infallible, he should repudiate the council and declare his status on his own authority. But if the Pope accepts the validity of a Church Council defining his status, he cannot be infallible or authoritative over the Councils of the Church.
Yet, our sisters and brothers from the Roman Christian Communion continue to make a strong case for the centrality of the Pope as the unifying figure and chief pastor of the Christian Church, through whom all of Christ's power and authority flows through for the healing and salvation of the world. In this theory of the Papacy, the Pope is not merely the bishop of the Diocese of Rome, and not only "the first among equals" with the global community of bishops. The Pope ALSO has a special dispensation from Christ to authoritatively direct the faith and practice of the Church, and is even able to speak infallibly when the Pope speaks officially "ex cathedra" ("from his chair" of Papal authority). Thus, in this Rome-centric theory, those Christians who are in Communion with the Pope are part of the "True Church" or "The Fullness of the Church". Those Christians who are not in Communion with, and under the authority of, the Pope are then seen as "separated brethren" at best, and not part of the Church at all at worst.
A LIST OF PAPAL PROS AND CONS
Here is a brief of the Biblical, Historical, and Theological issues related to this claim. These are some of the most common evidence and reasons for and against Papal Supremacy found on the internet and apologetic literature. This is not exhaustive, and each of these points can be explored in a much more rigorous fashion:
PRO 1: The Apostle Peter has primacy over the other apostles in the New Testament:
Peter's name appears 195 times in NT, more than all other Apostles put together
Peter's name always tops the list of Apostles: Mat. 10:1-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13
CON 1: Peter is also frequently mentioned as being particularly fallible and foolish, in addition to writing very little content for the New Testament.
Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
Galatians 2:11-13 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.
Mark 14:72 And immediately the rooster crowed a second time. And Peter remembered how Jesus had said to him, "Before the rooster crows twice, you will deny me three times." And he broke down and wept.
It is Paul, not Peter, who writes the majority of the New Testament (9-13 letters for Paul versus 1-2 for Peter). Likewise, Paul is associated with Luke who wrote Luke and Acts, while Peter is associated with Mark who wrote the shortest Gospel. And John wrote the longest Gospel and three other letters.
PRO 2: Jesus gives special attention to Peter at the end of John's Gospel.
John 21:17 The third time he said to him, "Simon son of John, do you love me?" Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, "Do you love me?" He said, "Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you." Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.
CON 2: Jesus also gives special attention to the "beloved disciple" in preference to Peter, as well as equality to the rest of the Apostles.
John 21.20–23 [20] Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, “Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?” [21] When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, “Lord, what about him?” [22] Jesus said to him, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!” [23] So the rumor spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, “If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?”
Ephesians 4:11 It was Christ who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers…
Acts 20:28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you [Bishops], to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.
PRO 3: Jesus gives Peter a charism to "bind and loose" after Peter's confession, and names him "The Rock" (which is what Peter means):
Matthew 16:16-19 Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
Protestants will say to understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the English to the Greek. They will go on to say in Greek, the word for rock is “Petra”, which means a large, massive stone, like bedrock or a cliff face. But the word used for Simon’s new name is different: It is “Petros”, which means a little stone, a pebble. Thus, Peter is the small stone bearing witness to the Bedrock of Christ.
The Catholic reply is to understand Matthew 16:18, we have to get behind the Greek to the Aramaic. In Aramaic there is only one word for "rock": Kepha. In the most ancient Aramaic translations, Jesus says the same word twice: I tell you that you are Peter (Greek: Petros, Aramaic: Kepha), and on this rock (Greek: Petra, Aramaic: Kepha) I will build my church. And we know from the rest of the New Testament that Peter is later called "Cephas" after the Aramaic (John 1.42; 1 Cor. 1.12; 3.22; 9.5; 15.5; Gal. 1.18; 2.9, 11, 14). Thus, with “Kepha… Kepha”, we see Peter is the rock.
CON 3: Jesus then gives that same charism to all the Apostles, and the "The Rock" which is the Foundation of the Church is not Peter, but the object of Peter's Confession, Jesus Christ. Peter is thus the small rock pointing to the Big Rock, just as we are all Christ-ians pointing to Christ.
Ephesians 2.19-20 You are citizens with the saints and also members of the household of God, 20 built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.
1 Cor. 3:11 For no one can lay a foundation other than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
1 Cor. 10:4 All drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Matthew 18.18–20 [18] “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. [19] “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. [20] For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them.” (Note here that the same power or charism is given to all the Apostles that was given to Peter two chapters before, and the pronouns here are plural in Greek)
John 20:22-23 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit. "If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained." (Again, the Greek pronouns and verbs here are plural, aimed at all the Apostles, not singular, aimed at one).
Critics note that the “Kepha… Kepha” argument was not used in the first 15 centuries of the Roman Church, but only came about after ancient Aramaic Bible translations became available in Europe in the mid-1500’s. They also note that the ancient Orthodox churches which used Aramaic as their native language– including the Assyrian Church of the East and the Syriac Orthodox Church of Antioch– did not read “Kepha… Kepha” as supporting Papal Supremacy. Usually they read it as supporting the idea that it is NOT Peter, BUT rather Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah is the Rock the Church is built on. Furthermore, these ancient Aramaic Churches reject the idea that the Pope has any special powers not possessed by other bishops. In other words, the “Kepha… Kepha” argument is made up by non-Aramaic speakers to support a non-Aramaic concept of Papal supremacy.
PRO 4: Peter did hold the chair to begin the first Council of Jerusalem.
Acts 15:6-7 The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them...
CON 4: It was actually James who gave the authoritative decision on behalf of the Council.
Acts 15:13 After they finished speaking, James replied, "Brothers, listen to me... (and he follows to give the official pronouncement of the council)"
PRO 5: Peter seems to have been the first bishop of the Church of Rome, given the scant evidence we have.
Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, in the 4th-century wrote of the first three bishops of Rome in his History of the Church: "After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome. Paul mentions him, when writing to Timothy from Rome, in the salutation at the end of the epistle... Linus, who had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years, delivered his office to Anencletus... Clement succeeded Anencletus after the latter had been bishop of the church of Rome for twelve years. The apostle in his Epistle to the Philippians informs us that this Clement was his fellow-worker."
CON 5: Peter also founded the Church at Antioch (according to Church tradition), and neither his role in Rome nor Antioch seems to have been singled out beyond the work of the other Apostles in the early Church.
The early Church Father Ignatius of Antioch (who died sometime between 108 and 140 CE) wrote a series of letters to churches while en route to his martyrdom in Rome, including a letter to the Church in Rome itself. In all his letters, Ignatius only mentions Peter twice (Romans 4.3; Smyrnians 3.2), and neither time does he attribute the leadership of the Church to Peter (not even the Church of Rome). When Ignatius writes to the Church of Rome in the early 100's, he doesn't even address the bishop of Rome at all. Which does not make sense of the Roman theory of the Papacy, since Ignatius was a bishop from Antioch headed to Rome (all places strongly associated with Peter).
For instance, Ignatius says "Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape" (Letter to Smyrnaeans 8.2). Later the the Philadelphians he writes: "I cried out, while in your midst, and said in a ringing voice—God’s voice: Give heed to the bishop and to the presbytery and to the deacons" (7.1). And yet he doesn't even address the bishop of Rome in his letter to the Roman Church. While this is an argument from silence, the silence is deafening in this case given the strength of Roman claims.
PRO 6: Peter and the Bishop of Rome have always held a special place in the life of the Church.
The Bishop of Rome seems to be a successor to Peter, and has historically held a place of importance among all Christians, even from the 2nd century.
The example of the OT shows us that there was always one High Priest over God's people on Earth.
CON 6: The special place of Peter is less than that of Jesus, and equal to other bishops.
Jesus Christ is the Great High Priest over God's People, not any particular Bishop (cf. Hebrews 7-10).
1Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ's sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, serving as [Bishops]…
If Peter had any special primacy among the Apostles (which is an exaggeration, see above), there is nothing in Scripture saying that it transfers to his successors.
The importance that the Bishop of Rome has historically held is no greater than the place of the ancient Bishops of cites such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople.
From the earliest Church Councils, our Orthodox sisters and brothers have contested the seizure of special prerogatives by the Roman Bishop, as reflected in the decisions of the first 7 Ecumenical Councils.
PRO 7: A Church Council officially declared the Pope to be the infallible chief pastor of the Universal Church at Vatican I Council (1869–1870).
CON 7: The Vatican Council was definitionally non-ecumenical, since it excluded Orthodox and Protestant churches, and thus could not make a universal decision.
It would be a contradiction for a Council to declare a Pope infallible, since if the Pope is infallible, all she would need to do is declare herself infallible.
The Vatican I declaration would be 1800 years too late for such an important office in the Church, if that office was legitimate.
The total effect of the development of the Primacy of the Papacy is that it is a novel idea to seize power for one sect in the Church, which is out of line with what has been believed by most Christians in most places across most times (cf. the Vincentian Canon).
CONCLUSION: LACK OF EVIDENCE AND MECHANISMS FOR PAPAL CLAIMS
Even if we grant the "pro" Roman Claims on all of the above, we still have two mechanisms which fail to obtain for Papal primacy to be true:
Lack of Ecclesial Mechanism: Nowhere in Scripture or ancient tradition is there any mechanism by which Peter's charism is only confined to Roman bishops. Indeed, any bishops ordained by Peter would possess the same charism. And according to Church tradition he ordained many bishops for many places, including not only Rome, but at least Antioch as well. And, in the mechanism of apostolic succession, every bishop with Peter in her lineage will share in the charism of Peter.
Lack of Providential Mechanism: Due to the outstanding lack of clarity in issues surrounding the Bishop of Rome, either Christ is supremely incompetent in communicating the supreme role of the Papacy in Scripture and History, or Christ has intended the Pope to be precisely what the rest of the Church has known for centuries: A bishop, just like any other bishop, with all the responsibilities and authority of other bishops, but nothing more.
Thus, Roman Christians fall into a host of Logical and Theological and Biblical fallacies in their desire to seize power and privilege and entitlements for the Papacy. Perhaps the biggest logical fallacy is "all-or-nothing" thinking, the radical dualism which says it all MUST be one way OR the other, with nothing in between. In particular, the Roman error is that EITHER the Pope must be the all powerful monarchical super-bishop who is in charge of the whole Church, OR the Pope is completely illegitimate and must be abolished completely. Neither of these is the case.
And so we reach this conclusion: The Pope IS a Bishop, a chosen successor of the Apostles, to oversee and pastor the Diocese of Rome: An ancient and venerable Church, almost as old as Orthodox Churches such as Jerusalem and Antioch and Damascus. The Pope is part of the worldwide college of Bishops, and at times functions as a spokesperson for global Christianity. But that is all. The Pope absolutely does not possess any power or authority that other bishops do not also possess. And the only power the Pope has to define doctrine and morals is as a member of global Councils of the Church, alongside his sister and brother bishops around the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment