Catholic Answers to the church of Christ

Peter was married; therefore he cannot be the first Pope

It is a historical fact that St. Peter was married; this, however, did not stop him from being the first Pope. It is entirely possible that some of the other early Popes were married as well, such as the two that came after St. Peter, St. Linus and St. Anacletus, whom we know very little about. There have also been a few Popes whose wives died before they became priests and subsequently Pope. There were also a couple of Popes who were laymen when they were elected Pope, but they were not married. Since the beginning of the fourth century, most priests and all bishops in the Catholic Church were required to remain celibate; therefore you will not find any married Popes in this time period. It is possible that some of the Popes in the first three centuries of the Church were married; however this possibility diminishes rapidly as time progressed to the forth century. The only evidence of a married Pope is in Mark 1:30 and 1 Corinthians 9:5, where it mentions Peter being married.

Peter was not the leader of the apostles; Matthew 20:25-26 proves that there was no leader among them except Christ

In Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus does not say that there was no leader among the apostles, but that "whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant." Jesus also gives himself as an example to his apostles, "the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve". Jesus says the same thing again in Mark 9:35. In 1 Peter 5:1-5, Peter tells the leaders in the Church to "not lord it over those assigned to you, but be examples to the flock." These verses do not say there were no leaders in the Church, or that there was no leader among the apostles, but that the leaders are to be servant to those under them. This is why the Pope has the title Servant of the Servants of God.

The proof of St. Peter's leadership among the apostles is given in John 21:15-17: "When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' Jesus said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" The first responsibility given to St. Peter is to love Christ, to love him "more than these." The second responsibility given to St. Peter is to feed and tend Christ's Church; this included the other apostles. Christ is the shepherd, and the members of his Church are the sheep. The Pope is not the shepherd of the sheep, but the shepherd's servant. The shepherd could not remain physically present with his sheep, so he entrusted his sheep to his loving servant, who will love and care for them, until the shepherd returns. The Pope is not "the head" or "the leader" of the Church, only Christ has these titles, but Christ made the Pope the "physically present head" and the "physically present leader" of the Church in his physical absents.

Peter could not be infallible because he is shown so weak and sinful in the New Testament

St. Peter was not infallible, just like all the other Popes that followed him. It is the office of the Pope that is infallible, not because of the man that holds the office, but because the Holy Spirit would guide the leadership of the Church into "all truth." It was Peter's faults and weaknesses that were shown in Sacred Scripture, above the faults of the other apostles, to show that the earthly leader of the Church was human and sinful. This was done so everyone would understand that although the office of the Pope is infallible, the man who is Pope is fallible.

Peter only wrote two books in the Bible, while Paul has several, therefore Paul had more influence in the Church

We have more writings from St. Paul than from St. Peter; this does not mean that Paul had more authority than Peter, only that he wrote more. We have no writings from St. Linus or St. Anacletus, the two Popes that succeeded St. Peter, but this does not prove that they were not Popes. In Acts 15:1-12, Paul did not have the authority to declare that Christians do not have to follow Mosaic practices. Paul had to go to Jerusalem, where the authority of the Church was, and it was by the Pope's authority that the Word of God was determined on this matter. The office of Pope was able to determine God's Word; however, the man who was Pope had difficulty putting this into practice, this is why Paul had to correct him (Galatians 2). Paul's account of this is that of one who is not afraid to challenge the head of the Church. Paul recognized Peter as the leader of the Apostles; this is why Paul went to see Peter before Paul began his mission (Galatians 1:18). We cannot deny that it was the work of St. Paul, more than the work of St. Peter, that spread Christianity throughout Europe, but this does not make Paul the earthly leader of the Church. St. Thomas Aquinas is held as the greatest theologian the Church has ever known, but this did not make him Pope, only one who worked under the authority of the Pope.

In the Gospels, Christ is the central figure, but the one that the Gospels are most concerned with after Jesus, is Peter. In John 1:42, Jesus acts as if he had been waiting to meet Simon, and the first thing he does is give him the name Peter. Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, so the word he would have use is Kepha, which means "Rock." It was Peter and Andrew, that Jesus chose to be his first apostles (Matthew 4:18-22, Mark 1:16-18, Luke 5:1-11). Whenever the names of the apostles are listed, Peter is always the first, and Judas Iscariot is always the last (Matthew 10:2-3, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16, Acts 1:13). Acts 5:29 actually says "Peter and the apostles", which sets Peter apart from the other apostles. Matthew 16:16, Mark 8:29, and John 6:68 show Peter as the spokesman for the Twelve Apostles, all twelve were ask a question, but only Peter answered. It is Peter that Jesus sent to get the coin to pay the Temple tax (Matthew 17:24-27). Peter was one of the three apostles to witness the transfiguration, again Peter is listed first (Matthew 17:1-8, Mark 9:2-8, Luke 9:28-37). When Peter and John ran to the empty tomb, John ran faster and arrived at it first, but he waited for Peter before going in (John 20:3-8). Jesus told Peter to "strengthen your brothers" (Luke 22:32), the job of a leader. Peter was the first apostle that Jesus appeared to after the resurrection (Luke 24:34, 1 Corinthians 15:5). Peter called for the election of a replacement for Judas (Acts 1:15-26). Peter delivered the Pentecost sermon (Acts 2:14-41). Peter works the first miracle (Acts 3:1-10). Peter was shown God's will that the gentiles should enter the Church (Acts 10). Not only is Peter shown to be the most important among the apostles, but he is shown to be their leader.

The distinction between the authority of Peter and Paul is clear, as St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote in the year 254 or 255: "For Peter, whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disagreed with him about circumcision, did not claim anything for himself insolently not assume anything arrogantly, so as to say that he held the primacy and that he ought rather to be obeyed by novices and those more recently arrived."

Jesus gave the keys or words of authority to all the apostles, not just Peter

The text in question is Matthew 16:13-20: "When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah." Some say, including the church of Christ, that after Jesus told Peter that the gates of the netherworld will not prevail against the Church, Jesus stopped addressing only Peter and began addressing all the disciples. The reason some say this, is because they do not want to admit that Christ gave "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" only to Peter. Matthew explicitly wrote, "Jesus said to him in reply, ''Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah.'" It is unmistakable that Jesus was speaking only to Simon Peter, and there is absolutely no indication that he began to address the others until verse 20. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives all the disciples the power to bind and loose in heaven, but only to Peter are "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" given. To deny this is to deny what Matthew wrote, and to deny Christ's words.

This is the correct interpretation of Scripture, and the one held by the early Church, even before the New Testament was canonized. This is what Tertullian wrote in the year 220 AD: "I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, 'On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' or 'whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound of loosed in heaven,' that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed on to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter? On you, He says, I will build my Church; and I will give you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed."

All Christians were given the power that Peter was (Matthew 18:18)

Matthew 18:18 is not addressed to all Christians. It is quite clear in beginning of chapter 18, that Jesus was talking only to his disciples, and the remainder of this chapter is a continuation of this dialogue between Jesus and his disciples. In Matthew 18:18, Jesus gives all the disciples the power to bind and loose in heaven; however, the other disciples are only given this power after Jesus gives it to Peter in Matthew 16:19. This is not the only power given to Peter though, Jesus gives Peter "the keys to the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16:19), and the leadership of Christ's Church (John 21:15-17). All Christians, including the other disciples, are not given the same power as Peter and his successors.

It was upon the truth that Peter spoke that Christ built his Church, not Peter himself

When Jesus first meets Peter he says to him, "'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kepha.' (which is translated Rock)" (John 1:42) Looking at the Greek, we see that the two names given to Simon are Κηφᾶς (Kaphas) and Πέτρος (Petros). Kapha is the Aramaic word for rock, and likewise, petros is the Greek word for rock. A literal translation from Aramaic to Greek would actually render kapha as πέτρα (petra). However, petra is the feminine form of the word, and would not be appropriate as a masculine name. This is why kapha is translated as the masculine form, petros, instead of petra. It is from the Greek word petros that we get the name Peter. There is no evidence of either Kapha or Petros being used as personal names before Jesus gave this name to Simon. This would have been the same as using the word rock as a personal name in English. So, a translation that makes as much sense in English as it did in Aramaic is, "'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Rock." Throughout the New Testament, Simon if often called Kapha or Petros, both of which translate into Rock.

Why does Jesus give Simon the name Rock? Most heretical churches cannot answer this question; however, since the Holy Spirit guides the Catholic Church into all truth, she has the answer. Jesus gives Simon the name Rock so that he can later make a play on words in Matthew 16:18. Many heretics, including the church of Christ, deny this, and say that petros refers to a pebble or small stone that can be thrown, and petra refers to a rock or boulder. This only demonstrates an ignorance of Greek grammar. All Greek nouns have a gender; however, changing the gender of a noun does not change it's basic definition. Sometimes this gender correlates to the physical gender of the subject, and other times it does not. In the case of the word rock, it does not. Although a rock has no gender, the Greek word for rock, petra, is feminine. To use petra as a masculine name, it must be changed to a masculine form, petros. Petra must be used every time except when it is used as a masculine name. The form of petros does not really mater, since Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic, and he would have said Kapha where petros and petra appear in the Greek text. So a correct translation of Matthew 16:18 is, "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." Some argue that since Greek adjectives must agree in case, gender and number with the nouns they modify, petra and petros cannot be referring to the same subject. This argument also demonstrates an ignorance of Greek grammar since petra and petros are both nouns and do not have to agree. Some also argue that the lack of the article in front of petros and the presence of the article in front of petra would mean that Simon was "a" rock, but Christ built his Church on "the" rock. Again this demonstrates an ignorance of Greek grammar since the predicate nominative never has an article, which is actually how we recognize it as a predicate nominative. The real key to understanding Matthew 16:18 is not in the definition of petros and petra, but the definition of the conjunctive phrase, "καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ" ("kai epi taute"), which is correctly translated as "and upon this". Kai indicates continuity of thought between two words or clauses, opposed to the adversative conjunctions ἀλλά (alla) or δέ (de), which would be translated as but. Taute is the near demonstrative pronoun, opposed to the far demonstrative pronouns ἕτερα (hetera) or ἐκεῖνη (ekeine), which would be translated as "that." This conjunctive phrase builds upon the previous clause in the sentence, and so quite specifically the second occurrence of rock is equated to the first. This means that petros and petra in this sentence are referring to the same subject. The difference between the conjunctive phrase used and how an adversative conjunction or a far demonstrative pronoun would change the meaning is clearer with English translations. With an adversative conjunction the translation would be, "You are Rock, but upon this rock I will build my church." With a far demonstrative pronoun the translation would be, "You are Rock, and upon that rock I will build my church." Both an adversative conjunction and a far demonstrative pronoun would separate the first rock from the second rock. However, even with an adversative conjunction or a far demonstrative pronoun the subject of the second rock is not given, and so Matthew would have to write, "You are Rock, but upon this rock you spoke I will build my church." Or, "You are Rock, and upon that rock you spoke I will build my church." Matthew did not write this, but specifically wrote, "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church." Matthew used kai, or and, to signify that he was still referring to the previously mentioned noun, "rock," and taute, or this, to signify that the previously mentioned noun, rock, is the same subject of the next noun, "rock". It is beyond all doubt that Matthew was very specifically explaining that Christ would build his Church on Peter, the first Pope.

This interpretation of Matthew 16:18, as well of the earlier interpretations of John 21:15-17, Matthew 16:13-20, and Matthew 18:18, are the original understanding, and is affirmed by St. Cyprian, who became Bishop of Carthage in 249. This is well before the Edict of Toleration in 313, and is at a time when the Christian Church was still in hiding from the persecution of imperial Rome. St. Cyprian writes: "Upon one He builds His Church, and to the same He says after His resurrection, 'feed My sheep'. And though to all His Apostles He gave an equal power yet did He set up one chair, and disposed the origin and manner of unity by his authority. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, but the primacy is given to Peter, and the Church and the chair is shown to be one." The Church of Christ has as its foundation the Chair of Peter, along with the other apostles and the prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone (Cf. Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14).

St. Cyprian of Carthage also wrote in the year 251, "There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord." Again, he wrote in the year 253, "... to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source." And in the year 254, "There speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built."

In addition to St. Cyprian's witness to the early Church's interpretation of this verse, Origen wrote the following sometime between the years 226 and 232 AD: "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail." Later he wrote in the year 244 AD: "Look at the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ build the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith,' He says, 'why did you doubt!'"

The apostles were witnesses of Jesus, "beginning from the baptism of John until the day on which he was taken up from us" (Acts 1:22); therefore they could have no successors

Acts 1:15-26 describes how the remaining eleven apostles chose a replacement for Judas Iscariot. They do this to fulfill what is written in the Book of Psalms, "May another take his office." (Psalms 109:8) The one they chose took the office of apostle, not the office of bishop, which is a successor of the apostles. Verses 21 and 22 give the requirements of an apostle, not the requirements of a bishop. When Matthias is chosen as an apostle, he is not the successor of Judas Iscariot, but the replacement of Judas, and is counted as one of the Twelve Apostles. Bishops are the successors of the apostles, and take on many of the duties of the apostles, but they do not take the office of apostle. Likewise, the apostles were not bishops, the office of apostle is higher then that of bishop, and could not be passed down like the office of bishop. St Peter is often called the first Bishop of Rome, which is correct in the sense that he carried out the duties as Bishop of Rome, but technically he was not a bishop. Peter was the earthly leader of the Church, and towards the end the end of his life, carried out the duties in Rome that a bishop would, his successors were the actually bishops of Rome, as well as the earthly leaders of the Church. As well, the number of bishops is not limited to twelve, as is the number of the Twelve Apostles (Paul is also an apostle, but not one of the Twelve). Bishops are the successors of the apostles, but they are not apostles, and they do not fulfill the requirements of the office of apostle.

St. Irenaeus attests of bishops' succession from the apostles sometime between the years 180 and 199: "It is possible, then, for everyone in every Church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the Apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the Apostles, and their successors to our own times: men who neither knew not taught anything like these heretics rave about. For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries which they taught to the elite secretly and apart from the rest, they would have handed them down especially to those very ones to whom they were committing the self-same Churches. For surely they wished all those and their successors to be perfect and without reproach, to whom they handed on their authority."

If the papacy ever failed and collapsed, what would happen to the rest of the Catholic Church?

Since the foundation of Christ's Church is the office of Peter, if this office ever collapsed, the Church would also collapse, just like any building whose foundation fails. We do not have to worry about this though, since Christ promised that "the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it" (Matthew 16:18). Christ has kept this promise for that last twenty centuries, and without doubt, he will keep it until he returns, and the Shepherd takes the place that his vicar held for him. There is another question that is worth asking though: what would happen if the Pope became a heretic? Christ promised that hell would not prevail against his Church, but this does not stop hell from attacking Christ's Church, and since the man holding the office of Peter is a sinful and fallible human, he could become a heretic. Since the office of Peter is infallible, what would stop a heretic Pope from declaring false doctrine? If this happens, the false doctrine could be corrected after this heretic Pope is gone, but this would mean that the Church erred in teachings of faith and morals, and would therefore not be infallible after all. We do not have to worry about this scenario either, since a Pope that becomes a heretic is no longer in communion with the Church and with Christ, and therefore ceases to be Pope. Remember that the Pope is only infallible when declaring doctrine on faith and morals, in communion with Christ's Church. If the Pope is not in communion with the Church of Christ, he cannot declare infallible doctrine, and can no longer hold the office of Peter. This is only a hypothetical scenario, which has never actually occurred, and no Pope has every officially declared heretical doctrine. Since Christ's Church will never fall, the office he left to care for it will never fall either.