11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
P
PE
ET
TE
ER
R,, T
TH
HE
EP
PA
AP
PA
AC
CY
Y&
&P
PA
AP
PA
AL
L IIN
NF
FA
AL
LL
LIIB
BIIL
LIIT
TY
Y
“In fact, it is impossible for me to misrepresent when I only repeat their own words.”
- (Catholic Bishop John Hughes, Hughes-Breckenridge Debate, p. 191).495
“One is forced to admit that gradual corruption of Christianity began very early.”
(Catholic Encyclopedia, 12:414).496
“About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early
Roman bishops, the historical record is silent. What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd
century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the
primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal
church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”—Grolier Academic Encyclopedia,
vol. 15, p. 63.497
“It would of course be a monstrous anachronism were we to attribute a belief in papal
infallibility to Ante-Nicene Fathers.”—Catholic Dictionary, p. 674.498
“The pope in himself is subject to error like other men…He has no infallibility in merely
historical or scientific questions. Even in matters of faith and morals he has no
inspiration, and must use the same means of theological inquiry open to other men. He
may err as a private doctor; nor is any immunity from error granted to books which he
may write and publish. Even when he speaks with apostolic authority he may err.”—
Catholic Dictionary, p. 67.499
“Substituting of false documents and tampering with genuine ones was quite a trade in the
Middle Ages” ---Catholic Encyclopedia, 6:136.500
What they Teach
That Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.
That Peter was given the primacy among apostles.
That Peter was the first pope and head of the church.
That the popes of Rome are Peter’s successors.
That Peter had been in Rome.
That the pope of Rome is the vicar of Jesus Christ.
That the pope of Rome is infallible.
That the pope has the authority to make laws for the church.
That their papal succession is ancient and continuous.
List of popes.
How the papacy came about.
495
See O. C. Lambert, 1:16.
See O. C. Lambert, 1:18.
497
GAE, 15:63. Emphasis mine.
498
Addis & Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 674.
499
Addis & Arnold, Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1887), p. 67; quoted
by O. C. Lambert, 1:24.
500
See O. C. Lambert, 1:16.
496
93
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
A. They say that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18.
(1) “The rock [mentioned in the passage] was Peter...The gates of hell [refers to] hostile,
evil powers...”501
(2) “From the references to Peter in the Gospels it is known that the name he received at
birth and with which he grew up was Simon. The Greek word petros (“rock”)502 and its
Aramaic equivalent, Cephas, were not in use as personal names. “Peter” is thus a
metaphorical or symbolic designation that came in time to function as the name of the man
in question. The symbolic name in its Aramaic form may have arisen in connection with
the affirmation that the resurrected Lord appeared first to Simon,503 that appearance and
thus Simon himself serving as a sort of foundation stone of the Church.”504
(3) “Peter travelled about in his missionary activity, accompanied by his wife, and finally
died the death of a martyr in Rome… Scholars have had considerable difficulty in
advancing from these traditions to the historical Peter, but one of the most important of the
traditional elements is also one of the most historically secure: Peter was the first to receive
a revelation of the risen Jesus Christ (see 1 Corinthians 15:5; Luke 24:34).505 From this
point other aspects of the picture of Peter have been developed, notably the change of his
name from Simon to Peter.”506
REFUTATION:
(1) In the Greek Peter is “petros” (masculine) and rock is “petra” (feminine). Petros is
actually a small pebble; petra an immovable rock. Petra must therefore refer to the
immovable truth that Peter the small pebble confessed, that “Christ is the Son of the Living
God.” If Christ wanted to call Peter “rock”, He would have said so. Jesus is the champion
in the use of figurative language, yet one could not accuse Him of being ambiguous. It
would have been easier for Him to call Peter “Rock” just as He called him “Satan”;507 He
did not do so, because he did not mean Peter would be the “Rock” upon which He would
build His church.
(2) Jesus is the foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11). He was also called Rock (1 Corinthians
10:4). The vacillating stone like Peter could not have been the rock upon which the church
of Jesus was built (cf. Galatians 2:11-12; Matthew 16:23).
B.
Based on their reasoning that Peter was entrusted with the keys,
they say that Peter was given the primacy among the apostles.
(1) What does the Roman Catholic Church mean by the “keys”? “Keys: a symbol of
authority. Peter has the power to admit into the Church and to exclude therefrom. Nor is
501
Footnote to Matthew 16:18ff., Confraternity Version of the Bible.
Gr. petros means stone, small pebble; petra means rock.
503
It is not true that the Lord appeared first to Simon. See Mark 16:6-9.
504
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
505
On the contrary, these passages do not say that the resurrected Lord first revealed Himself to Peter.
Rather, it was to Mary Magdalene (Mark 16:9).
506
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
507
Matthew 16:23.
502
94
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
he merely the porter; he has complete power within the Church. ‘To bind and to loose’
seems to have been used by the Jews in the sense of ‘to forbid or to permit’; but the present
context requires a more comprehensive meaning. In heaven God ratifies the decisions
which Peter makes on earth, in the name of Christ.”508
(2) “After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after the
ascension he began to exercise it. After preaching in Jerusalem and Palestine he went to
Rome, probably after his liberation from prison. Some years later he was in Jerusalem for
the first church council, and shortly afterward at Antioch. In the year 67 he was martyred
in Rome.”509
(3) “When the bishop of Rome came to be regarded as the bishop of the most prominent
Church in Christendom, the picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the
tradition of his martyr's death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic
succession, according to which each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter,
to whom Jesus had entrusted the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19).”510
(4) In an effort to promote the “primacy” of Peter, and of the pope as his “successor,” Pius
XII, “in his Christmas message for 1950,” “announced officially that the tomb of the
apostle Peter had been found during excavations under the high altar of St Peter's Basilica
in Rome”511
REFUTATION:
(1) On the meaning of “the keys”: Jesus says the scribes and the Pharisees shut the
kingdom to others (Matthew 23:13). How did they do it? See Matthew 23:2-4. They had
the Word of God in their hands, hence they had the power to declare it to the people, the
power to open the kingdom. By not declaring the Word, by not preaching the truth, by
hindering the proclamation of the truth, they have shut the kingdom against the people.
The lawyers too had the key of knowledge (Luke 11:52). In a sense they possessed the key
to the kingdom. By opposing Jesus and His work, they, like the scribes, had hindered
others from entering the kingdom.
508
Footnote to Matthew 16:18ff, Confraternity Version of the Bible.
The Introduction to the First Epistle to St. Peter, Confraternity Version of the Bible.
510
Rather, Christ had also entrusted those keys to other disciples, cf. Matthew 18:18.
511
MEPS 2005, art. “Pius XII.” The story that Peter was buried in Rome is a legend that originated at the
close of the 4th century. The Catholic Church needs just this “papal pronouncement”! But to those of us who
seek the truth, this statement from a pope-- a mere human being who is prone to errors and mistakes like the
rest of humanity -- means nothing at all, since it is not supported by facts. The Roman Catholic Church
hierarchy has been lying and fabricating documents in order to promote and defend their doctrines. For
example: The doctrine of the “Assumption of Mary” was largely based on the work of Dionysius the
Areopagite (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1:608), which is now admitted as a forgery (Outline of Dogmatic
Theology, 2:279); it was “intended to create the impression that the author belonged to the time of the
Apostles” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 5:14). The document was probably authored by pope Vigilius (Catholic
Encyclopedia, 10:504), and was planned to secure his authority as pope.
509
95
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(2) Catholicism argues that because Peter was promised the power, he was promised the
primacy. But the same power was promised to others (cf. Matthew 18:18; John 20:23).
Does this mean that the other apostles too were promised the primacy? Receiving the
power does not mean receiving the primacy!
(3) What were promised for Peter and to others to bind or to loose were things, not
persons (see Matthew 16:18-19; 18:18). Peter was able to use the keys, like the eleven
other apostles, at the opening of the kingdom of God’s dear Son (Colossians 1:13) on the
day of Pentecost (Acts 2).
(4) Peter called himself a co-elder (Gr. sumpresbuteros), a term that gives no hint that he
has jurisdictional authority over the church at-large (1 Peter 5:1, 2). Furthermore, Peter
never claimed nor exercised authority or “primacy” over the other apostles. In the council
of the church (Acts 15), it was James, not Peter, who suggested what to bind on the
Gentiles (vv. 13, 19, 20, 21). To the Holy Spirit, this decision seemed good (v. 28).
(5) The dogma of papal primacy is not based on facts of history but on a legend.512 “After
the fall of Rome (AD 476) to Germanic invaders, the Roman pope513 was the only
guardian of Christian universalism in the West. He began more explicitly to attribute his
primacy to Rome's being the burial place of St Peter, whom Jesus had called the “rock” on
which the Church was to be built.”514 In our time, the pope of Rome not only claims just
that but also says that Peter’s bones were buried under the “high altar” of their church
building!515 They have no way of proving that those bones are indeed Peter’s. Maybe they
should try DNA testing to dispel all doubts.
(6) “About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early
Roman bishops, the historical record is silent. What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd
century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the
primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal
church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”516
(7) The story of Peter’s episcopacy in Rome was invented by the editor of the Clementine
Romance, so says Dr. Salmon in his book, Infallibility of the Church.517
The Catholic Encyclopedia says, “Writers of the fourth century were prone to describe many practices as
apostolic institutions which certainly had no claim to be so regarded.” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 3:484; quoted
by O. C. Lambert, 1:18).
513
The “popes” during this period includes Leo I (440-461), Hilary (461-468), Simplicius (468-483), Felix
III (II) (483-492), Gelasius (492-496), and Anastasius II (496-498).
514
MEPS 2005, art. “Orthodox Church.”
515
“In his Christmas message for 1950 Pius [XII] announced officially that the tomb of the apostle Peter had
been found during excavations under the high altar of St Peter's Basilica in Rome.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Pius
XII”).
516
GAE, 15:63. Emphasis mine.
517
“To return now to the story of Peter’s Roman episcopacy, the real inventor of the story was an editor of
the Clementine Romance... This work was brought to Rome at the end of the second or beginning of the
512
96
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
C.
Because Peter was given the primacy, he became the pope and head
of the church.
(1) Says Cardinal Gibbons: “The Catholic Church teaches that our Lord conferred on St.
Peter the first place of honor and jurisdiction in the government of His whole church.”518
(2) “The picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the tradition of his martyr's
death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic succession, according to which
each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter, to whom Jesus had entrusted
the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19). Beginning in the 11th century, the
Eastern Churches rejected the authority of the Roman bishop (pope), and opposition to the
theory of papal succession and authority was a foundation stone of the Protestant
Reformation.”519
REFUTATION:
(1) Jesus is Head of the Church. “Because a husband is the head of the wife, just as Christ
is head of the Church, being himself savior of the body” (Ephesians 5:23, The Holy Bible,
New Catholic Edition).
(2) Peter calls himself a co-elder520 (1 Peter 5:1-3), an apostle (1 Peter 1:1), but not pope.
(3) The Introduction to the First Epistle of St. Peter, Confraternity Version of the Bible,
says: “After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after
the ascension he began to exercise it.” At the church council held in Jerusalem (Acts 15),
in which the error of the Judaizers was subject of the discussion, Peter did take the lead as
“pope and head of the church.” What was Peter doing at that time? Was he remiss in his
duties? And more questions: When was the “primacy” conferred upon Peter? Was it after
he had confessed the Christ? Or was it after he had seen the resurrected Christ? Seems to
me that Catholic theologians could not even make up their minds!
(4) When Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans, neither the pope nor Peter’s name as head
was mentioned (See Romans 16). If Peter was already “pope” serving in Rome, Paul could
be guilty of not paying him respect!
(5) The truth of the matter is, there is nothing in Paul’s other writings about Peter’s being
pope (1 Corinthians 1:12; 9:5; 2 Corinthians 11:5). Paul even rebuked Peter (Galatians
2:11-12), something no one could do to a pope today!
third century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had
ordained him, and set him at his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of
the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in
particular this story of Clement’s ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome
that it was at once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since.” (Dr. Salmon, The
Infallibility of the Church, quoted by Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p, 75.)
518
Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 95.
519
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
520
Gr. sumpresbuteros, “fellow presbyter, fellow elder” (Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich & Danker, p. 780).
97
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(6) Peter’s supposed bishoprick in Rome is largely based on tradition;521 and traditions,
Roman Catholic writers say, are “exaggerated” and “unreliable.”522
(7) It is difficult to reconcile legends or traditions with facts of history, scholars admit.
According to traditions, “Peter travelled about in his missionary activity, accompanied by
his wife, and finally died the death of a martyr in Rome… Scholars have had considerable
difficulty in advancing from these traditions to the historical Peter.”523
(8) “About Peter’s actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early
Roman bishops, the historical record is silent. What is unquestioned is that by the 3rd
century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the
primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and wielding within the universal
church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters.”524
(9) Dr. Salmon says the story that Peter went to Rome and served as bishop is an
invention.525
(10) Unlike today’s popes, Peter did not accept homage from men (cf. Acts 10:25, 16).
Unlike today’s pope, Peter was married (cf. Matthew 8:14; Mark 1:30; Luke 4:38; 1
Corinthians 9:5).
(11) Since the pope of Rome also claims to be the bishop of Rome, he must not be
celibate.526 The Catholic Bible says “a bishop must be married” (cf. 1 Timothy 3:1-2).527
Note: The Roman Catholic Church also admits in their Bible that “priestly celibacy as a
law is of later ecclesiastical institution.”528
Microsoft Encarta editors say: “Peter, St (died c. AD 64), the most prominent of the 12 disciples of Jesus
Christ, a leader and missionary in the early Church, and traditionally the first bishop of Rome.” (MEPS 2005,
art. “St. Peter”).
522
“Tradition by its very nature, tends to exaggeration, as we find in the legends of ancient people.
Exaggerated, they destroy themselves.” (Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 69. Quoted by O. C. Lambert,
Catholicism Against Itself, 1:58)
523
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
524
GAE, 15:63. Emphasis mine.
525
“To return now to the story of Peter’s Roman episcopacy, the real inventor of the story was an editor of
the Clementine Romance... This work was brought to Rome at the end of the second or beginning of the
third century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had
ordained him, and set him at his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of
the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in
particular this story of Clement’s ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome
that it was at once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since.” (Dr. Salmon, The
Infallibility of the Church, quoted by Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p, 75.)
526
“Forbidding to marry” is one of the doctrines of demons (1 Timothy 4:3). The Roman Catholic Church
imposes celibacy on its popes, cardinals, bishops if these want to remain in office.
527
1 Timothy 3:1-2, “This saying is true: If anyone is eager for the office of bishop, he desires a good work.
A bishop then must be blameless, married but once…” (New Catholic Edition).
528
See footnote to 1 Timothy 3:2, The Holy Bible, New Catholic Edition.
521
98
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(12) The word “pope” means father, and the use of this title is prohibited by Jesus
(Matthew 23:9). If Peter called Marcus his son (1 Peter 5:13), it only meant he was
Marcus’ “father in the faith” but not the spiritual father of all Christians.
(13) The popes today are often referred to by Catholics as “Pontifex Maximus,” a title
that Peter never used. What does it mean? The Standard International Encyclopedia says
it is “the title [applied] by the ancient Romans to the members of one of the two celebrated
religious colleges. The chief of the order was called the Pontifex Maximus. The pontiffs
had general control of the official religion, and their head was the highest religious
authority in the state... Following Julius Ceasar the emperor was called Pontifex Maximus.
In the time of [emperor] Theodosius (who died in 395 A.D.) the title became equivalent to
the pope, and is now one of the titles of the head of the Roman Catholic Church.”529
D.
They say that the popes, or bishops of Rome, are Peter’s
successors.
(1) Again, from Cardinal Gibbons: “...And that same spiritual supremacy has always
resided in the popes, or bishops of Rome, as being the successors of St. Peter.
Consequently, to be true followers of Christ, all Christians, both among the clergy and the
laity, must be in communion with the See of Rome, where Peter rules in the person of his
successor.”530
(2) “Roman Catholics believe that the pope is the successor of St Peter, to whom Christ
entrusted the leadership of the Church as recorded in Matthew 16:18-19: “You are Peter,
and on this rock I will build my Church...”531 Peter and Paul, they say, entrusted the keys
to the bishop of Rome. 532
(3) “The picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the tradition of his martyr's
death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic succession, according to which
each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter, to whom Jesus had entrusted
the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19). Beginning in the 11th century, the
Eastern Churches rejected the authority of the Roman bishop (pope), and opposition to the
theory of papal succession and authority was a foundation stone of the Protestant
Reformation.”533
529
Standard International Encyclopedia. Quoted by Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, 113.
Cardinal Gibbons, Faith of Our Fathers, p. 95.
531
MEPS 2005, art. “Papacy.”
532
Linus (66?-78?), whose episcopacy is under a cloud of doubt, was said to have been “entrusted with his
office by the apostles Peter and Paul after they had established the Christian church in Rome. By this
primitive reckoning he was therefore the first pope, but from the late 2nd or early 3rd century the convention
began regarding St Peter as first bishop. What Linus’ actual functions and responsibilities were can only be
guessed, for the monarchical, or one-man, episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome” (J.N.D. Kelley, The
Oxford Dictionary of Popes [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986], p. 7).
533
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
530
99
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
REFUTATION:
(1) There is only one incident of an apostle who was replaced, Judas Iscariot, by Matthias
(Acts 1:16-26).
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
It was prophesied that Judas would have a successor (Acts 1:20).
The qualifications of one who would succeed him were laid out (Acts 1:21-22).
There were two who qualified (Acts 1:23).
But the Spirit made His choice (Acts 1:16, 24).
(2) On the other hand, not all apostles who died had had successors. When James died,
neither the apostles nor the church bothered to have someone take his place (Acts 12:2).
(3) When Peter was about to depart (2 Peter 1:14-15), he stirred up the brethren to
remember the things he had taught, but none of these teachings included the papacy nor his
successor as apostle.
(4) Both the “papacy” and the “successors to the pope” are just figments of imagination.
There is no textual evidence to support it. 534
(5) “The doctrine [of apostolic succession], however, was not formalized until the conflict
with Gnosticism during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, when the Gnostics claimed a secret
tradition traceable to the apostles. Church authorities then began to look to the succession
of bishop to bishop as the guarantee of orthodox teaching.” 535
Says Dr. Salmon in his book, Infallibility of the Church: “…The real inventor of the story was an editor of
the Clementine Romance… This work was brought to Rome at the end of the second or beginning of the
third century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had
ordained him, and set him at his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of
the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in
particular this story of Clement’s ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome
that it was at once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since. But the adoption of
this fable sadly perplexed the chronology [of Roman Catholic popes]. For according to the list of Irenaeus,
Clement was but the third Roman bishop since the Apostles; and this is confirmed by the internal evidence of
Clement’s epistle, which, according to the judgment of the best critics, cannot be earlier than AD 97. It was
felt that unless Clement could be pushed back to an earlier period, his ordination could not be
chronologicvally posssible. Accordingly another list of Roman bishops was published, which puts up
Clement to the second, and pushes down Anacletus to the third place. This double list has been very
perplexing to historical inquirers; but that the earlier order of Irenaeus is really correct is proved by the kind
of evidence which I count peculiarly trustworthy. In the Roman Liturgy to this day the names of its first
bishops are commemorated in the order of Irenaeus, viz. Linus, Anacletus, Clement. If this were the original
order, we can understand its being preserved in the Church of Rome (which was very conservative in
liturgical matters), notwithstanding that subsequent chronologers of eminence placed Clement second. But if
Clement had been really originally in the second place, it is quite impossible that the name of Anacletus, who
is unknown to church history, should have been placed before him. These Clementine legends have so filled
with fable the whole history of St. Peter, that I should even think the story of Peter’s coming to Rome at all to
be open to question, were it not, as I already said, that no rival Church claims the martyrdom.”(Dr. Salmon,
Infallibility of the Church, quoted by Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p. 75).
535
MEPS 2005, art. “Apostolic Succession.”
534
100
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(6) Christ, not Peter, is the head of the church (Ephesians 1:22, 23). There is no need for
an earthly head since Christ has not always been absent (cf. Matthew 28:18-20). Besides,
a body with two heads is monstrosity.
E.
They say that Peter had served as pope in Rome.
(1) The Introduction to the First Epistle to St. Peter, Confraternity Version of the Bible,
says: “After the resurrection the primacy was conferred upon him and immediately after
the ascension he began to exercise it. After preaching in Jerusalem and Palestine he went
to Rome, probably after his liberation from prison. Some years later he was in Jerusalem
for the first church council, and shortly afterward at Antioch. In the year 67 he was
martyred in Rome.” Peter’s pontificate, according to Roman Catholic tradition, lasted 25
years, from A.D. 42 to A.D. 67.536
(2) “The place of composition [of First Epistle of Peter] is commonly believed to have
been Rome, chiefly because of the phrase ‘she who is at Babylon ... sends you greetings’
(5:13), Babylon being an apocalyptic name for Rome. Some scholars have proposed that
the Epistle actually may have been composed in the ancient city of Babylon.”537
(3) “In his Christmas message for 1950 Pius announced officially that the tomb of the
apostle Peter had been found during excavations under the high altar of St Peter's Basilica
in Rome.538 On September 9, 1953, he proclaimed the Marian Year in celebration of the
centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary.
Pius XII died on October 9, 1958.”539
REFUTATION:
(1) There is no epistolary mention of Peter’s alleged bishopric in the city of Rome either
by Paul or by Peter himself. “Rome” is mentioned 9 times in the New Testament, and
never in connection with Peter. “The sources of [our] knowledge about Peter are the letters
of Paul, written between AD 50 and 60; the four canonical Gospels and Acts of the
Apostles, written from about AD 65 to the end of the 1st century; [and] two canonical
letters bearing Peter's name as author.”540 Yet none of these mentioned Peter’s
“pontificate” in Rome.
J. N. D. Kelly, canon of Chichester Cathedral, admits that concerning Peter’s stay in Rome, the New
Testament “appears silent about such a stay.” Furthermore, he says: “Nothing is known of the length of his
residence: the story that it lasted twenty-five years is a 3rd-century legend.” (J. N. D. Kelley, The Oxford
Dictionary of Popes, p. 6.) Italics mine, ETM.
537
MEPS 2005, art. “Epistles of St. Peter.”
538
Books and other publications of the Roman Catholic Church show that the hierarchy has been lying and
fabricating documents in order to promote and defend their doctrines. For example: The “Assumption of
Mary” was largely based on the work of Dionysius the Areopagite (Catholic Encyclopedia, 1:608), which is
now admitted as a forgery (Outline of Dogmatic Theology, 2:279); it was “intended to create the impression
that the author belonged to the time of the Apostles” (Catholic Encyclopedia, 5;14); it was probably authored
by pope Vigilius (Catholic Encyclopedia, 10:504), and planned as a document to secure his authority.
539
MEPS 2005, art. “Pius XII.”
540
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
536
101
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(2) Paul must have seen Peter going on a missionary journey accompanied by his wife (1
Corinthians 9:5), but he did not mention Peter being in Rome.
(3) The Roman Catholic Church would want us to believe that Peter had been pope from
42 to 67 A.D., a period of twenty-five years. Paul wrote the book of Romans in “winter
57-58 A.D.” (so says the New Catholic edition of the Bible), but he did not even bother to
greet the “pope” there!
(4) Peter’s bishoprick in Rome is based on the conjecture that Babylon (1 Peter 5:13),
where he was present at the time he wrote his first epistle, is a “code-name for Rome.”
J.N.D. Kelly, in his book, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, says the New Testament is
silent about Peter’s having stayed in Rome. “The story that it [that is, Peter’s pontificate in
Rome] lasted twenty-five years is a 3rd century legend.”541
(5) “About Peter's actual position at Rome, however, and about the position of the early
Roman bishops, the historical record is silent. What is unquestioned is that by the 3d
century the Roman bishops were representing themselves as having succeeded to the
primacy that Peter had enjoyed among the apostles and as wielding within the universal
church a primacy of authority in doctrinal matters. During the 4th and 5th centuries, after
the Roman emperor Constantine I's grant of toleration to Christianity (the Edict of Milan,
313) and its rise to the status of an official religion, a series of popes, most notably Leo I
(r. 440-61), translated that claim into a primacy of jurisdiction over the church. That claim
was matched, however, by the rival claim of the church at Constantinople to a
jurisdictional primacy in the East equal to that of Rome in the West. In fact, for at least
another century, it was the Byzantine emperor of Constantinople who could actually claim
to be functioning as the supreme leader of Christendom in spiritual as well as temporal
matters.”542
(6)
Dr. Salmon in his book, Infallibility of the Church, says the story of Peter’s
episcopacy in Rome was invented by the editor of the Clementine Romance.543
F.
They say that the pope of Rome is the vicar of Jesus Christ.
(1) When the triple crown is placed on the head of the new pope at his coronation, the
ritual prescribes the following declaration to be said by the officiating cardinal: “Receive
541
Kelley, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, p. 6.
GME 2000, art. “Papacy.”
543
“To return now to the story of Peter’s Roman episcopacy, the real inventor of the story was an editor of
the Clementine Romance, of which I spoke when lecturing on the New Testament Canon. This work was
brought to Rome at the end of the second or beginning of the third century; and it had then prefixed a letter
from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had ordained him, and set him at his own chair of
teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of the Clementines was rejected as heretical, the
narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in particular this story of Clement’s ordination by Peter
was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome that it was at once adopted there, and has been the
traditional Roman account ever since.” (Dr. Salmon, Infallibility of the Church. Quoted by Samuel Smith,
The Claims of Rome, p. 75).
542
102
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
the tiara adorned with the three crowns, and know that thou art the Father of princes and
kings, the Ruler of the world, the Vicar of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” 544
(2) It was Innocent III (1198-1216) who first claimed to be “Vicar of Christ,” and it was
Nicholas III (1277-1280) who first syled himself “Vicar of God.”545
(3) Leo XIII, in his encyclical issued in 1855, said, “The pope holds upon this earth the
place of God Almighty.” 546
(4) The New York catechism says: “The pope takes the divine place of Jesus Christ on
earth... By divine right the pope has supreme and full power in faith and morals over each
and every pastor and his flock. He is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the entire
church, the father and teacher of all Christians. He is the infallible ruler, the founder of
dogmas, the author of and judge of the councils; the universal ruler of truth, the arbiter of
the world, the supreme judge of heaven and earth, the judge of all, being judged by no one,
God himself on earth.” 547
REFUTATION:
(1) The ruler of this world is Satan (cf. Matthew 4:8-9).
(2) The Holy Spirit was to come in Christ’s name (John 14:6). In a sense He is truly
Christ’s vicar.
(3) The head of the church is Christ (Ephesians 1:22-23).
(4) The supreme judge is Christ (2 Corinthians 5:10).
(5) Paul says the man who exalts himself above all, and sits in the place of God, is the
man of sin (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).
G.
They say that the pope of Rome is infallible.
(1) The dogma of papal infallibility as defined by that Council on July 18, 1870:
“Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the
Christian faith, for the glory of God our Saviour, the exaltation of the Catholic religion,
and the salvation of the Christian people, the sacred Council approving, we teach and
define that it is a dogma divinely revealed: The Roman Pontiff, when he speaks ExCathedra, that is, when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by
National Catholic Almanac, quoted by Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 127. “Although the
pope's priestly powers as bishop come from the sacramental act of ordination, the pope derives his papal
authority from an act of election, which since 1179 has been the right of the Sacred College of Cardinals. It is
by virtue of their decision that each new pope inherits his official titles, ancient and modern, secular and
sacred: bishop of Rome, vicar of Jesus Christ, successor of the prince of the apostles, supreme pontiff of the
universal Church, patriarch of the West, primate of Italy, archbishop and metropolitan of the Roman
province, sovereign of the state of Vatican City, servant of the servants of God.” (GME 2000, art. “Papacy”).
545
Catholic Encyclopedia, 15:403; quoted by O. C. Lambert, Catholicism Against Itself, 1:113.
546
Leo XIII, in his Encyclical, The Reunion of Christendom, issued in 1855; quoted by Boettner, Roman
Catholicism, p. 127.
547
National Catholic Almanac, quoted by Lorraine Boettner, Roman Catholicism, p. 127.
544
103
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
virtue of his Supreme Apostolic Authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith and morals
to be held by the universal church, by divine assistance promised him by the blessed Peter,
is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His church
should be endowed for the defining of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that
therefore such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are irreformable of themselves, and not
from the consent of the Church.” 548 And the curse to be pronounced to all who disagree
with the teaching is: “But if anyone--which may God avert-- presume to contradict this our
definition: Let him be anathema.”
(2) The First Vatican Council promulgated two constitutions: (a) Dei Filius (April 24,
1870), stating Roman Catholic teaching on faith and reason, and (b) Pastor Aeternus (July
18, 1870), declaring as Roman Catholic doctrine that the pope has jurisdictional primacy
over the entire Church and that, under specific conditions, he is endowed by God with the
infallibility (freedom from error) in teaching faith and morals that God willed the Church
to have.549
(3) As asserted by Roman Catholic theologians, the entire Roman Catholic Church is
infallible and therefore cannot err. The entire church cannot err when it shows universal
agreement in matters of faith and morals--from its bishops to its laity. These are the people
who hold the highest teaching office in the Church and are believed to proclaim Christian
doctrine infallibly: (a) the entire body of bishops in union with the pope of Rome, when it
teaches with moral unanimity; (b) an ecumenical council that receives the approval of the
pope; and (c) under certain conditions, the pope alone.550
(4) As promulgated by the First Vatican Council, the pope exercises an infallible teaching
office only (a) when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, in his official capacity as pastor and
teacher; (b) when he speaks with the manifest intention of binding the entire Church to
acceptance; (c) when the matter pertains to faith or morals taught as a part of divine
revelation handed down from apostolic times. 551
(5) The adherents hold that the Roman Catholic Church derives this gift from God, who
alone is the ultimate source of infallibility. “The matters subject to infallibility are
doctrines rooted in Scripture and in the ancient traditions of the Church, neither of which
548
Henry Edward Manning, The Vatican Council and Its Definitions (New York: P. J. Kennedy, 1896).
“The definition of papal infallibility was hotly debated, although opponents in the council never numbered
more than one-fifth of those present. Some thought a definition inopportune, given the tense religio-political
atmosphere in Europe, and others had serious historical and theological doubts about the doctrine itself.
Some opponents absented themselves from the July 18 session at which a final vote of 433-2 was registered
in favour of the constitution Pastor Aeternus. No bishop of the Church refused to accept the new definition.
A small number of Catholics in Germany and neighbouring countries separated from the Roman Catholic
Church and formed the Old Catholic Church in protest. They took inspiration from the renowned Church
historian Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, who was excommunicated for refusing to accept Pastor
Aeternus.” (MEPS 2005, art. “First Vatican Council”).
550
MEPS 2005, art. “Papal Infallibility.”
551
“Since the middle of the 19th century, only two ex cathedra pronouncements have been made in the
Roman Catholic Church: the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception in 1854 by Pope Pius IX,
and the definition of the Assumption of the Virgin in 1950 by Pope Pius XII.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Papal
Infallibility”).
549
104
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
can be contradicted; thus, novel doctrines and other innovations are believed to be
excluded. Infallibility is therefore seen as a gift that is to be exercised with the utmost care
in the service of the gospel.”552
REFUTATION:
(1) Papal infallibility, is a new doctrine, something which old Catholicism never believed
before. Says the Catholic Dictionary, “It would of course be a monstrous anachronism
were we to attribute a belief in papal infallibility to Ante-Nicene Fathers.”553
(2) The Catholic Dictionary says the pope may err : 554 “The pope in himself is subject to
error like other men; his infallibility comes from the Spirit of God, which on certain
occasions protects from error in faith and morals. He has no infallibility in merely
historical or scientific questions. Even in matters of faith and morals he has no inspiration,
and must use the same means of theological inquiry open to other men. He may err as a
private doctor; nor is any immunity from error granted to books which he may write and
publish. Even when he speaks with apostolic authority he may err.”555
(3) “It would be an enormous mistake to suppose that the Pope is considered infallible,
even on matters of faith, in his ordinary conversation; nor is he believed to be so in
preaching; nor necessarily in his writings concerning matters of religion.”556
(4) A fallible man corrects the “bulls” of “infallible pope.” For example, the Regent of
the Chancery in the Roman Curia is the man “who revises the Bulls that have been
expedited and promulgated, and, if any error has crept in, corrects it.”557
(5) If the popes were infallible, they would have given the church and the world
“infallible commentaries” on the Bible. For example, concerning the baptism for the dead
(1 Corinthians 15:29), Conway says: “No one knows with certainty what is meant by this
obscure text of St. Paul.”558 Certainly a comment an “infallible” Catholic pope would make
about this text also belongs to the realm of faith and morals. Possession of infallibility
MEPS 2005, art. “Papal Infallibility.”
Addis & Arnold, Catholic Dictionary, p. 674.
554
Addis & Arnold, Catholic Dictionary (New York: The Catholic Publication Society, 1887), p. 67; quoted
by O. C. Lambert, 1:24.
555
Concerning papal infallibility, here is another explanation from James Cardinal Gibbons: “Finally, the
inerrability of the popes, being restricted to questions of faith and morals, does not extend to the natural
sciences, such as astronomy or geology, unless where error is presented under the false name of science, and
arrays itself against revealed truth. It does not therefore concern itself about the nature and motions of the
planets. Nor does it regard purely political questions, such as the form of government a nation ought to adopt,
or for what candidate we ought to vote” (Gibbons, p. 148). On the other hand, O. C. Lambert, citing the
Catholic Dictionary, p. 241, says “the Regent of the Chancery in Roman Curia is the man who ‘revises the
Bulls that have been expedited and promulgated [by the pope], and, if any error has crept in, corrects it”
(Lambert, 1:28). This is an incident of a fallible man correcting the “infallible pope”!
556
Plain Facts, p. 38; quoted by O. C. Lambert, 1:25.
557
Catholic Dictionary, p. 241; quoted by O. C. Lambert, 1:26.
558
Bertrand L. Conway, The Question Box, p. 369.
552
553
105
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
would be an advantage in a church that is racked by confusion created by conflicting papal
pronouncements.
(6) Only the Bible claims to be inspired (2 Timothy 3:16-17); hence, we may consider it
alone as infallible. The Bible did not divinely reveal the doctrine of papal infallibility in its
pages.
(7) Was Peter “infallible”? Either Christ or Paul believed otherwise (cf. Matthew 16:2223; Galatians 2:11-14). Paul says, “He (Peter) was to be blamed” (v. 11).
(8) But of course, consider the instances where “infallible” popes have erred. Here are
some examples:
(a) Callistus (217-222) was said to have been unitarian in belief, identifying the Father and
the Son as one individual, or indivisible, spirit.559
(b) Liberius (352-366), in 358 A.D., subscribed to the heretical creed of Arius in order to
gain the bishopric of Rome under the heretical emperor Constantius. He opposed
Athanasius, the great trinitarian defender.
(c) Zozimus (417-418) pronounced Pelagius an orthodox teacher but later reversed his
position at the insistence of Augustine.560
(d) Vigilius (537-555) confessed he had been a tool of Satan when he sympathized with
the monophysite heretics.561
(e) Gregory I (590-604) called anyone who would assume the title “universal bishop” as
an anti-Christ. Boniface III compelled emperor Phocas to confer on him the title, and it
has been used by all later popes.562
“As pope, Callistus was opposed by Hippolytus, an antipope who accused him of Monarchianism, a
doctrine that denied personal distinctions in the Godhead. He was also accused of laxity for admitting
repentant adulterers to Holy Communion. One of the principal accomplishments of Callistus as archdeacon
was the establishment on the Appian Way of the Cemetery of Callistus, a shrine of martyrs where all 3rdcentury popes but him are buried.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Callistus”). For his pontificate, see MEPS 2005, art.
“Popes.”
560
“Zosimus, St (c. 350-418), pope from 417 to 418. Zosimus was a Greek by birth and was perhaps of
Jewish ancestry. His short pontificate was characterized by much controversy. He alienated the inhabitants of
Gaul when he appointed Patroclus, bishop of Arles, as a papal vicar. He ordered the African bishops to
reconsider their condemnation of Pelagianism, a heretical doctrine formulated by the Romano-British monk
Pelagius. When the African bishops refused, Zosimus, becoming better informed, confirmed the
condemnation of the Pelagians in a renowned encyclical letter called the Tractoria.” (MEPS 2005, “St.
Zosimus”).
561
He was set up as pope in place of Silverius, whom Byzantine general Belisarius had deposed. (MEPS
2005, art. “St. Silverius”).
562
“Phocas’s reign was brutal and oppressive; he persecuted the Monophysites, and had the Jews at Antioch
put to death as retribution for their attacks on the Christians there in 610. However, his dealings with Rome
559
106
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(f) Honorius (625-638), who taught the “monothelite heresy,” was excommunicated by the
6th ecumenical council in 680 A.D. 563 “A pope is not infallible in proceedings such as
those of Honorius who contributed unintentionally to the increase of heresy.” 564 The
Catholic Encyclopedia says concerning this “heretical” pope: “And in addition to these we
decide that Honorius also, who was the Pope of Elder Rome be with them cast out of the
Holy Church of God, and be anathematized with them, because we have found by his letter
to Sergius that he followed his opinions in all things and confirmed his wicked dogmas.”565
The author of this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia also says that the letter of Honorius
was condemned to be burned, but he says Honorius “was admittedly of excellent
intentions” and “died with untarnished reputation”!566
(g) Adrian II (867-872) declared all civil marriage to be valid; but Pius VII (1800-1823)
condemned them as invalid.
(h) Sergius III (904?-911?) had an illegitimate son by Marozia who also became pope,
John XI (931-935).567 Surely an affair like that could involve both faith and morals. Also,
“according to one authority, Sergius took pity on the two imprisoned pontiffs, and caused
them to be put to death.”568
(i) John XII (955-964?) is described by Catholic Encyclopedia as “a coarse, immoral man
whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel.” This man was stricken
with paralysis in the act of fornicating with a woman.569
(j) Benedict IX (1032-1049) was “a disgrace to the chair of Peter,” “of dissolute life,”570
and is also said to be a “youthful libertine.”571 He was made pope by force.572
were cordial: he conferred the title Universal Bishop on Pope Boniface III in 607, and presented him with the
Pantheon two years later, which Boniface consecrated for use as a church.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Phocas”).
563
The “infallible” pope Honorius (625-638), who was declared a heretic (in 680) by “infallible” pope
Agatho, 42 years after pope Honorius died. “Honorius I (died 638), pope (625-638), was posthumously
declared a heretic. Born in the Campania region of Italy, he was son of the consul Petronius. As pope,
Honorius was interested in the evangelization of the Anglo-Saxons, bestowing upon the archbishops of
Canterbury and York the pallium—a vestment symbolic of the fullness of episcopal authority. He also
persuaded the Celtic Christians to adopt the Roman liturgy and date of Easter. Honorius gained considerable
influence over the government of Italy by wisely administering the financial affairs of the papacy, but he is
chiefly remembered for his involvement in the Monothelite controversy. Asked his opinion about
Monothelitism—the heretical doctrine which asserted that Christ had only one will, although he had two
natures—Honorius responded in a letter with words that seemed to support the heresy. The Third Council of
Constantinople in 680, 42 years after his death, declared both Honorius and the letter heretical. During the
19th-century controversies over papal infallibility, Roman Catholic scholars generally agreed that Honorius
did not condone Monothelitism but rather made a careless choice of language in addressing the controversy.”
(MEPS 2005, art. “Honorius I”). See also J. N. D. Kelley, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, 71; O. C.
Lambert, Catholicism Against Itself, 1:28.
564
Question Box, 1929 edition, p. 173.
565
Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:452, 455, 456.
566
See O. C. Lambert, 1:26.
567
Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:426.
568
Catholic Encyclopedia, 3:729; 9:159.
569
Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:426.
107
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(k) Adrian IV (1154-1159) authorized the invasion of Ireland as its subjugation, by the
British king, Henry II. That conquest marked the British rule of Ireland, a thing bitterly
resented by the Irish.573
(l) John XXIII (1410-1415) was deposed by council of Constantinople because of simony
and immorality, and the Roman Church now attempts to deny that he ever was a legitimate
pope.
(m) Eugene IV (1431-1447) condemned Joan of Arc to be burned as a witch (1431), while
Benedict declared her a saint (1919).
(n) Innocent VIII (1484-1492) had illegitimate children, seven, or eight sons by different
women. Romans had given him the name “Father.” He sold Catholic offices to highest
bidder.574
(o) Alexander VI (1492-1503), whom the Catholic Encyclopedia classes as “the worst
pope,”575 had six illegitimate children. The charge of adultery was often brought against
him.576
(p) Julius II (1503-1515) had three illegitimate daughters, and bribed the Cardinals for the
office.577
(q) Gregory XIII (1572-1585) is “the pope who excommunicated Queen Elizabeth of
England, even though she was not a Catholic, and made arrangements with the King of
Spain to invade England. The Lord evidently had a hand in destroying the Spanish
570
Catholic Encyclopedia, 4:17; 2:429.
Catholic Encyclopedia, 4:791.
572
Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:428.
573
Adrian IV (c. 1100-1159), pope (1154-1159), born Nicholas Breakspear near St. Albans, Hertfordshire, he
was the only Englishman to ascend to the papacy. He was unanimously elected pope upon the death of
Anastasius IV (pope 1153-1154). “Adrian almost immediately confronted Arnold of Brescia, the Italian
monk and reformer who opposed the temporal power of the papacy. At Adrian's request, the German king
Frederick I seized Arnold and turned him over to the Roman Curia for trial as a political rebel. After Arnold's
execution in 1155, Adrian crowned Frederick Holy Roman emperor. Adrian is said to have been called upon
by Henry II of England to grant permission for the subjugation of Ireland. Because the popes claimed the
“islands of the sea” by virtue of the Donation of Constantine, Adrian denied Henry absolute possession, but
permitted him to occupy the island as a papal fief. The facts of the matter are uncertain, but the papal bull
Laudabiliter, attributed to Adrian, may have been a forgery. The term Vicar of Christ began to be used to
describe the pope during Adrian's brief pontificate.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Adrian IV”).
574
Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:19-20.
575
Catholic Encyclopedia, 6:213.
576
Rodrigo, also known as “Alexander VI (c. 1431-1503), pope (1492-1503) of the Borgia family,…was
noted for his worldliness and corruption. As a member of the powerful Borgia family, he acquired wealth and
lived a life of worldly pleasure. He had four children by a Roman noblewoman, Vanozza Catanei; the two
most famous were Cesare and Lucrezia Borgia. During the conclave of 1492, following the death of Innocent
VIII, Rodrigo was elected pope. Even though he used bribery to secure the necessary two-thirds of the votes,
his election was generally welcomed.” (MEPS 2005, art. “Alexander VI”).
577
Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:562.
571
108
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Armada and bringing his machinations to naught. He also is the pope who rejoiced so at
the horrible Massacre of St. Bartholomew, lighting bonfires and striking a medal
commemorating the infamous occasion.”578
(r) Sixtus V (1585-1590) recommended the reading of the Bible, but Pius VII (1800-1823)
and other popes condemned the practice.
(s) Urban VIII (1623-1644) and Paul V (1605-1621) condemned Galileo for holding as
scientific the Copernican theory (otherwise known as the heliocentric theory), and
consigned Copernicus’ book De revolutionibus to the index of prohibited books, March 5,
1619.579
H. They say that the pope has the authority to make laws for the church.
(1) “The Roman Catholic Church also recognizes the authority of the pope to make
universal law and that certain customary practices may acquire the force of law.”580
(2) “The full range of canon law in contemporary times may be seen in the Roman
Catholic Church, which promulgated a revised Latin code in 1983. Promulgated by the
authority of Pope John Paul II, this code consists of seven books for a total of 1,752
canons. Each book is divided into titles, but in the larger books the titles are grouped in
parts and even in sections. A Code of Canons of the [Roman Catholic] Eastern Churches
was promulgated in 1990.” 581
(3) To the Catholic church, her human laws equal divine laws. “To enable her to carry
out this divine plan she makes laws, laws purely ecclesiastical, but laws that have the same
binding force as the divine laws themselves… For Catholics, therefore, as far as
obligations are concerned there is no practical difference between God’s law and the law
of the Church.” 582
(4) “The hierarchical constitution of the Church establishes the supreme authority (the
Roman pontiff and the college of bishops, the synod of bishops, the cardinals, the Roman
578
Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:2-3; 13:337.
“Galileo, a Catholic astronomer and physicist of the 17 th century, had adopted the heliocentric theory of
the universe. When it became known that Galileo believed that the earth and not the sun moved, making day
and night, he was ordered to be put in chains, and unless he recanted, should be tortured. He was tried by the
Inquisition, with pope Paul V as chairman, condemned as heretic for teaching, as they said, ‘contrary to the
sacred and divine Scriptures.’ He was imprisoned for life, and his books put on the list of forbidden books,
where they remained until 1829. Leo XII removed them from the Index Expurgatorius and allowed
Catholics to read them. From 1616, when they were condemned, until 1829, was two hundred and thirteen
years. This simply proves, beyond a possibility of quibble, that the pope, and the Catholic church, erred in
faith, and taught the prevailing ignorance concerning the ‘sacred and divine Scriptures!’ Now, all the popes
believe exactly what Galileo believed! The pope condemned the truth as heresy!” (O. C. Lambert,
Catholicism Against Itself, 1:24).
580
MEPS 2005, art. “Canon Law.”
581
MEPS 2005, art. “Canon Law.”
582
Explanation of Catholic Morals, p. 26.
579
109
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Curia, and papal legates) and the particular churches (dioceses, archdioceses [ecclesiastical
provinces], episcopal conferences, as well as parishes and deaneries).” 583
(5) “The pope, as the supreme judge for the whole Roman Catholic world, may hear cases
himself.” 584
REFUTATION:
(1)
God alone has supreme authority (cf. John 19:10-11).585 He who usurps God’s
authority is the “man of sin” (2 Thessalonians 2:3-4).586
(2)
The enemy of God’s people was he who “changed times and laws” (Daniel 7:25).587
(3) All of us, and that includes the pope, shall stand before the judgment seat of Christ (2
Corinthians 5:10).
(4) Man is to fear God and keep His laws or commandments (Psalm 105:45; Ecclesiastes
12:13; 1 Cor. 7:19)).
(5) The Jews of old did not obey the voice of the Lord, nor did they walk in His laws
(Daniel 9:10).
(6)
If one will enter into life, he must keep the commandments (Matthew 19:17).
(7)
Keeping His commandments is showing our love for God (cf. John 14:15; 14:21;
15:10).
(8) He who says he knows God and does not keep His commandments is a liar (1 John
2:4).
I. They say that their papal succession is ancient and continuous.
(1) “Apostolic Succession, in [Catholic] theology, [is] the doctrine asserting that the
apostles designated their successors as bishops through prayer and the laying on of hands,
and that bishops have in turn designated their successors in the same way ever since.”588
“Catholic doctrine states that Jesus appointed St Peter to be the first Pope, which
MEPS 2005, art. “Canon Law.”
MEPS 2005, art. “Canon Law.”
585
John 19:10-11, “Pilate therefore said to him, ‘You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have
power to release you, and power to crucify you?’ Jesus answered him, ‘You would have no power over me
unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.’” (RSV).
586
2 Thess. 2:3-4, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a
falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposes and exalts himself
against every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, proclaiming
himself to be God.” (RSV).
587
Daniel 7:25, “He shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High,
and shall think to change the times and the law; and they shall be given into his hand for a time, two times,
and half a time.” (RSV).
588
MEPS 2005, art. “Apostolic Succession.”
583
584
110
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
established a link between Jesus and the office of the Pope. This link is known as apostolic
succession, whereby the Pope is seen as the heir to the apostles.”589
(2)
“The doctrine [of apostolic succession] is found as early as the Epistle to the
Corinthians (issued around 96 AD), traditionally attributed to Pope Clement I… It is
identified with the succession of bishops in office and interpreted as the source of the
bishops’ authority and leadership role. The most specific instance of these claims is that
the pope is the successor of St Peter, who was chosen by Jesus as head of his Church (see
Matthew 16:16-18). Thus, Catholicism tends to see the same authority and spiritual gifts
operative in the Church today as were operative in the apostolic communities.” 590
(3) “Almost implicit in this belief in apostolic succession is the belief that the Church has
the right and duty to teach Christian doctrine and morals authoritatively and that the
substantial correctness of this teaching is guaranteed by the continued presence of the Holy
Spirit in the Church. For all practical purposes, Catholic theology locates this authority in
the bishops, the pope, and the ecumenical councils; under certain circumstances it
acknowledges this teaching as infallible.” 591
(4) “When the bishop of Rome came to be regarded as the bishop of the most prominent
Church in Christendom, the picture of Peter as a caring pastor was combined with the
tradition of his martyr's death in Rome to serve as the basis of a theory of apostolic
succession, according to which each Roman bishop was regarded as the successor to Peter,
to whom Jesus had entrusted the keys to the kingdom of God (see Matthew 16:19).”592
REFUTATION:
(1) Who could qualify for apostolic succession? Acts 1:20-22, 24.
(a) There must be a prophecy that someone should succeed an apostle. (v. 20).
(b) The one who should succeed an apostle must be one who has accompanied Jesus and
the other apostles (v. 21), the terminus a quo being “from the baptism of John” (v. 22a) and
the terminus ad quem is “unto that same day that He was taken up from us” (v. 22b).
Definitely no one from among men now qualifies.
(c) The one who should succeed an apostle must be a witness of Christ’s resurrection (v.
22c).
(d) The one who should succeed an apostle must be chosen by God (v. 24), not by the
College of Cardinals.
Acts 1:20-24 mentions the only incident of an apostle being replaced. There has been no
other. The qualifications are too stringent that today no one, definitely no one, could ever
fill the office.
MEPS 2005, art. “Roman Catholic Church.”
MEPS 2005, art. “Roman Catholic Church.”
591
MEPS 2005, art. “Roman Catholic Church.”
592
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
589
590
111
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Roman papacy is to me like a dreaming office, filled by men who dreamed to be like Peter,
but could never be.593
The function of Peter’s office ends with his life. Peter, like the rest of the apostles, now
remains embedded as one of the foundations of the church, buried there, as any foundation
of the old building should be (cf. Ephesians 2:20-22594). They are never replaced. (For
one to replace the foundation, he must replace the whole building too.).
(2) The Roman Catholic Church can’t claim that the Holy Spirit is continually present in
their church. Definitely not. It is the Lord’s church that has become the dwelling place of
God in the spirit (Ephesians 2:21-22). They even have a very difficult time proving that
the Catholic church is the church of Christ.
(3) The idea of “apostolic succession” did not originate with the apostles. We have yet to
find textual support for the doctrine “that apostles designated their successors as bishops
through prayer and the laying on of hands.” When all the twelve apostles died, nobody
took over their office. Rather, “the idea that Church ministers were successors of the
apostles, who were in turn successors of Christ, can be traced to St Clement I before the
end of the 1st century.” 595
(4) The doctrine of “apostolic succession” was formalized as a result of the conflict with
the Gnostics. “The doctrine, however, was not formalized until the conflict with
Gnosticism during the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th centuries, when the Gnostics claimed a secret
tradition traceable to the apostles. Church authorities then began to look to the succession
of bishop to bishop as the guarantee of orthodox teaching.” 596 “Apostolic succession” is
an error that pesists up to this day.
(5) The claim to “apostolic succession” too was made in the 4th and 5th centuries. “During
the 4th and early 5th centuries, the popes made various claims to special authority and
rarely had them challenged, perhaps as much because of poor communications and
indifference as acquiescence. With Pope St Leo I, the Great (reigned 440-461), the
prerogatives of the papacy were articulated in word and deed with a new forcefulness. By
this time the canon of apostolic succession, clearly proposed as a norm for orthodoxy and
legitimacy at the end of the 2nd century, was fully developed, and Leo was able to exploit
it as successor of Peter—indeed, as “vicar of Peter”. Backed by the civil authority of the
Western Roman Empire, Leo successfully intervened in the affairs of other Western sees
such as Vienne, in France, where he reversed the decision of the local bishop. Leo insisted
They even dreamed up Peter’s bones, pope Pius XII announcing in 1950 that they had found it under their
altar (MEPS 2005, art. “Pius XII”).
594
Ephesians 2:20-22, “And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself
being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in
the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.” (KJV).
595
MEPS 2005, art. “Apostolic Succession.”
596
MEPS 2005, art. “Apostolic Succession.”
593
112
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
in peremptory fashion that the Council of Chalcedon (451) accept his teaching on the
christological debates then raging, and the council in effect did so.”597
(6) Their so-called “papal succession” was still unsettled even in the 14th century, it
needed a political ruler and a church council to settle it. “In 1414 Sigismund598 persuaded
the antipope John XXIII to convoke the Council of Constance at which a long-standing
dispute over the papal succession was settled and ecclesiastical reforms were instituted.
The council also tried the Bohemian religious reformer John Huss (Jan Hus), and executed
him as a heretic. Sigismund succeeded to the throne of Bohemia in 1419. His power in
Bohemia was never more than nominal, however, as the Bohemians believed him guilty of
complicity in the death of Huss and repeatedly rose in arms against him (see Hussite
Wars).”599
A church council convoked by one of the claimants to the papacy (whom they call “antipope”) was needed to settle it. The “Council of Constance [is an] ecclesiastical council of
the Roman Catholic Church that met in the imperial city of Constance (Konstanz) from
1414 to 1418. It was convoked by Antipope John XXIII at the request of Sigismund, Holy
Roman Emperor. The specific purpose of the council was to settle the question of the papal
succession, claimed by John and by Pope Gregory XII and Antipope Benedict XIII. It was
also intended to end the schism in the Western Church, formulate ecclesiastical reforms,
and oppose heresies.”600
To end the schism between the Roman and Avignon papacies, the council of Constance
deposed three popes, John XXIII (who convoked the council itself), Gregory XII, and
Benedict XIII, and elected Cardinal Ottone Colonna, who became pope Martin V! “The
Council of Constance has been, and is still, the object of much controversy, especially
concerning the supremacy of a general council over the pope. The central issue is the
questionable legitimacy of the first part of the council, which dealt with supremacy,
because it had been convened by John XXIII, an antipope. The issue is further confused by
MEPS 2005, art. “Papacy.”
Sigismund (1368-1437), Holy Roman emperor (1411-1437) and king of Hungary (1387-1437) and
Bohemia (1419-1437), was the son of Holy Roman Emperor Charles IV. In 1385 he married Queen Mary of
Hungary, and acceding to the throne of Hungary two years later. In 1396 he led a great army of Crusaders
from many parts of Europe against the Turks; the latter, under the Ottoman sultan Bayazid I, inflicted a
crushing defeat upon Sigismund's forces at Nicopolis (now Nikopol), Bulgaria. Upon the death of Holy
Roman Emperor Rupert, Sigismund was elected to succeed him, but he did not receive formal coronation at
the hands of the pope until 1433. (MEPS 2005, art. “Sigismund”).
599
MEPS 2005, art. “Sigismund.”
600
MEPS 2005, art. “Council of Constance.” “The most important results of the council were the decisions
that its rulings were binding even on the pope and that regular meetings of such councils must be held. The
members of the council regularized the voting procedure for papal elections and chose Cardinal Ottone
Colonna, who became Pope Martin V. The selection of the new pope ended the schism between the popes of
Rome and Avignon. The council also condemned as heretical the doctrines of the English religious reformer
John Wycliffe and those of the Bohemian religious reformers John Huss (Jan Hus) and Jerome of Prague.
The two Bohemians were later condemned to death at the stake by the secular authorities.” (MEPS 2005, art.
“Council of Constance.”).
597
598
113
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
the enigmatic approval by Martin V of the decisions of the council: the text of his approval
contains a clause that seems to rule out the questionable first part of the council.” 601
(7) Claim to “Unbroken Papal Succession” Broken: See List of Popes, pp. 23-30.
(a) Peter (42-67 AD). Papacy under question. Peter never claimed to be pope. No record
in the New Testament writings that he ever became pope.
(b) Persons listed as popes, from the beginning till 607, actually never claimed to be
popes. The first person to use the title “Pope” was Boniface III (607 AD)
(c) “Saint Hippolytus (217-235) was antipope under Callistus I, Urban I, and Pontian.
Exiled to Sardinia with Pontian, he was reconciled with that pope and died a martyr.” 602
Note: This means that the so-called papacy was claimed by more than one man, and that
there was no way to determine who the real “pope” was. Catholics conveniently dismissed
other claimants by just calling them anti-popes. To me it looks like this is an example of
the plural eldership, not a mono-episcopacy.
(d) The “pontificate” of Novatian (AD 251) overlaps with that of Cornelius (251-253).
To settle this confusion, the Catholic Church dismisses Novatian as an antipope.
(e) “There is a four-year gap between Marcellinus (296-304) and Marcellus I (308-309).
Some historians hold that these two popes were really the same person; others disagree and
maintain that Marcellus I governed the church from 304 to 309.” 603 Note: If these were
two different persons, the four-year gap proves that church had survived without a pope!
So what’s the need for one today? If Marcellus and Marcellinus were just one and same
person, this proves their papal list is in a mess!
(f) “Antipope Felix II (355-365) was anciently considered a legitimate pope. The two
numerals following the name of Felix III (II), who reigned from 483 to 492, and Felix IV
(III), who reigned from 526 to 530, indicate Felix II to have been legitimate (the first
numeral), or not (the second numeral); whichever numeral is used will reflect the
acceptance or non-acceptance of the ancient view. Given that Felix V (1440-1449), himself
an antipope, did not style himself Felix IV, he evidently considered Felix II legitimate. The
listing of popes is not consistent in this matter. Thus, John XVI (997-998) was an antipope,
and yet the next pope to take the name styled himself John XVII (1003). The opposite also
happens, however. John XXIII (1410-1415) was an antipope; the modern John XXIII
(1958-1963) ignored him altogether and took the same name and numeral. An identical
case is that of Antipope Victor IV (1138) and Pope Victor IV (1159-1164).”604 Again:
Your papal list is in a terrible mess.
MEPS 2005, art. “Council of Constance.”
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
603
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
604
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
601
602
114
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(g) “Antipope Lawrence was antipope twice: in 498 and again in 501-505.” 605
(h) “Stephen (II) was legitimately elected pope in 752, but he died before his episcopal
consecration. Because of this circumstance, he was considered as not having been pope at
all. A more recent theology of the papacy has reversed that opinion, however, and the
Annuario Pontificio has listed him as pope since its 1961 edition; hence the two sets of
numerals for the later Stephens, those in parentheses reflecting the newer opinion.”606
(i) “John XIX (1024-1032), because of medieval errors in listing, there is no John XX. It
may be that antipope John (?-844) has confused the list.” 607
(j) “The regnal dates of Benedict V (964-966) overlap those of his predecessor, Leo VIII
(963-965), and of his successor, John XIII (965-972). Benedict is nevertheless considered
a legitimate pope.” 608
(k) “Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048) was legitimately elected three times and
deposed twice.” 609 Note: He was elected thrice, therefore he is a legitimate pope; he was
deposed twice therefore he is an illegitimate pope!
(l) “Martin IV (1281-1285); there is neither Martin II nor Martin III.” 610 Looks like there
was no infallible pope during this period to guide them.
(m) “Marinus I (882-884) and Marinus II (942-946) were listed erroneously as Martin II
and Martin III, respectively, and so in 1281 pope-elect Martin chose to be called Martin
IV.” 611 This error should tell us that their much-vaunted claim to infallibility is just a
claim, nothing else.
(n) “The election of Clement VI by the French Cardinals, in opposition to Urban VI
[1378-1389] was the commencement of the Great Western Schism, which lasted more than
fifty years. During this period the world saw with astonishment two, and sometimes three,
persons claiming to be the infallible representatives of Christ upon earth. The Italian
Cardinals elected in succession Urban VI, Boniface IX [1389-1404], and Innocent VII
[1404-1406]. The French Cardinals elected Clement VII [1378-1394] and Benedict XIII
[1394-1423]. Upon the death of Innocent VII [1406], the Italian Cardinals elected Gregory
XII [1406-1415], and he and his rival, Benedict XIII [1394-1423], as usual, endeavoured to
undermine each other.”612
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
607
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
608
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
609
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
610
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
611
MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
612
Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p. 69.
605
606
115
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
(o) “It would be impossible to refer fully to all the broken links that may be observed in
the chain of succession, five in the R. C. Directories, but it may be remarked that no
mention is made of the Vacancies in the See of Rome, as given in the list of Labbe and
Cossart who state:
AD 1268. “The See was vacant 2 years, 6 months, 2 days.”
AD 1291. “The See was vacant 2 years, 3 months, and 2 days.”
AD 1313. “The See was vacant 2 years, 3 months, 17 days.”
AD 1415. “The See was vacant 2 years, 5 months, 10 days.”
“No reference either is made to the innumerable schisms given by Labbe and Cossart,613
nor is there any allusion to the Great Western Schism above referred to, which rent the
[Roman Catholic] Church, commencing in the year 1378, when for fifty years rival popes
disputed the right of papal chair. High Roman Catholic authorities can be produced in
support of the claims of each of the rival popes. They not only cursed and
excommunicated one another, but also the adherents and followers of their opponents. The
main Romish argument for the existence of an infallible guide in the Church is, that it is
inconceivable that God could have left Christians exposed to the risk of error in matters
concerning their eternal salvation, but during these fifty years private persons were
consigned to eternal damnation by one or other of these popes for acknowledging the
rights of his rival.” 614
When we see gaps in the regnal terms of some popes, and the conflicting claims of others
to the papal office, we could only shake our head in pity. The Roman Catholic Church has
done a really very bad job proving their claim of “unbroken papal succession.”
See the table of popes below. Men whose names are high-lighted in red don’t claim to be
popes. Boniface III (607) was the first to claim the title “pope” or “universal bishop.”
Popes
POPE
DATE
St Peter
42-67
St Linus
67-76
St Anacletus (Cletus)
76-88
St Clement I
88-97
St Evaristus
97-105
St Alexander I
105-115
Labbe and Cossart were “Jesuit writers,” who “describe some of the popes as ‘monsters, heretics,
usurpers, murderers, robbers, tyrants, adulterers, and apostates. The testimony of Cardinals Baronius and
Bellarmine, and of the pious Paul Sarpi, is conclusive of their condemnation…” (Samuel Smith, The Claims
of Rome, p. 69).
614
Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p. 69.
613
116
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
St Sixtus I
115-125
St Telesphorus
125-136
St Hyginus
136-140
St Pius I
140-155
St Anicetus
155-166
St Soter
166-175
St Eleutherius
175-189
St Victor I
189-199
St Zephyrinus
199-217
St Callistus I
217-222
St Hippolytus 1
217-235
St Urban I
222-230
St Pontian
230-235
St Anterus
235-236
St Fabian
236-250
St Cornelius
251-253
Novatian
251
St Lucius I
253-254
St Stephen I
254-257
St Sixtus II
257-258
St Dionysius
259-268
St Felix I
269-274
St Eutychian
275-283
St Gaius (Caius)
283-296
St Marcellinus 2
296-304
St Marcellus I
308-309
2
St Eusebius
309
St Melchiades (Militades)
311-314
St Silvester I
314-335
St Mark
336
St Julius I
337-352
Liberius
352-366
Felix II
355-365
3
St Damasus I
366-384
Ursinus
366-367
St Siricius
384-399
St Anastasius I
399-401
St Innocent I
401-417
St Zosimus
417-418
St Boniface I
418-422
Eulalius
418-419
St Celestine I
422-432
St Sixtus III
432-440
St Leo I
440-461
St Hilary
461-468
117
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
St Simplicius
St Felix III (II)
468-483
3
483-492
St Gelasius I
492-496
Anastasius II
496-498
St Symmachus
498-514
Lawrence 4
498; 501-505
St Hormisdas
514-523
St John I
523-526
St Felix IV (III) 3
526-530
Boniface II
530-532
Dioscorus
530
John II
533-535
St Agapitus I
535-536
St Silverius
536-537
Vigilius
537-555
Pelagius I
556-561
John III
561-574
Benedict I
575-579
Pelagius II
579-590
St Gregory I
590-604
Sabinian
604-606
Boniface III
607
St Boniface IV
608-615
St Deusdedit I
615-618
Boniface V
619-625
Honorius I
625-638
Severinus
640
John IV
640-642
Theodore I
642-649
St Martin I
649-655
St Eugene I
654-657
St Vitalian
657-672
Deusdedit II
672-676
Donus
676-678
St Agatho
678-681
St Leo II
682-683
St Benedict II
684-685
John V
685-686
Conon
686-687
Theodore
687
Paschal
687
St Sergius I
687-701
John VI
701-705
John VII
705-707
Sisinnius
708
118
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Constantine
708-715
St Gregory II
715-731
St Gregory III
731-741
St Zachary
741-752
Stephen (II) 5
752
Stephen II (III)
752-757
St Paul I
757-767
Constantine
767-69
Philip
768
Stephen III (IV)
768-772
Adrian I
772-795
St Leo III
795-816
Stephen IV (V)
816-817
St Paschal I
817-824
Eugene II
824-827
Valentine
827
Gregory IV
827-844
John
844
6
Sergius II
844-847
St Leo IV
847-855
Benedict III
855-858
Anastasius
855
St Nicholas I
858-867
Adrian II
867-872
John VIII
Marinus I
872-882
9
882-884
St Adrian III
884-885
St Stephen V (VI)
885-891
Formosus
891-896
Boniface VI
896
Stephen VI (VII)
896-897
Romanus
897
Theodore II
897
John IX
898-900
Benedict IV
900-903
Leo V
903
Christopher
903-904
Sergius III
904-911
Anastasius III
911-913
Lando
913-914
John X
914-928
Leo VI
928
Stephen VII (VIII)
928-931
John XI
931-935
Leo VII
936-939
119
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Stephen VIII (IX)
939-942
Marinus II
942-946
9
Agapitus II
946-955
John XII
955-964
Leo VIII 7
963-965
Benedict V 7
964-966
John XIII
965-972
7
Benedict VI
973-974
Boniface VII
974; 984-85
Benedict VII
974-983
John XIV
983-984
John XV
985-996
Gregory V
996-999
John XVI
997-98
3
Silvester II
999-1003
John XVII 3
1003
John XVIII
1004-1009
Sergius IV
1009-1012
Benedict VIII
1012-1024
Gregory VI
1012
John XIX 6
1024-1032
Benedict IX 8
1032-1044
Silvester III
1045
Benedict IX 8 (2nd time)
1045
Gregory VI
1045-1046
Clement II
1046-1047
Benedict IX 8 (3rd time)
1047-1048
Damasus II
1048
St Leo IX
1049-1054
Victor II
1055-1057
Stephen IX (X)
1057-1058
Benedict X
1058-1059
Nicholas II
1059-1061
Alexander II
1061-1073
Honorius II
1061-1072
St Gregory VII
1073-1085
Clement III
1080-1100
Bl. Victor III
1086-1087
Bl. Urban II
1088-1099
Paschal II
1099-1118
Theodoric
1100
Albert
1102
Silvester IV
1105-1111
Gelasius II
1118-1119
Gregory VIII
1118-1121
120
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Callistus II
1119-1124
Honorius II
1124-1130
Celestine II
1124
Innocent II
1130-1143
Anacletus II
1130-1138
Victor IV 3
1138
Celestine II
1143-1144
Lucius II
1144-1145
Bl. Eugene III
1145-1153
Anastasius IV
1153-1154
Adrian IV
1154-1159
Alexander III
1159-1181
Victor IV
1159-1164
3
Paschal III
1164-1168
Callistus III
1168-1178
Innocent III
1179-1180
Lucius III
1181-1185
Urban III
1185-1187
Gregory VIII
1187
Clement III
1187-1191
Celestine III
1191-1198
Innocent III
1198-1216
Honorius III
1216-1227
Gregory IX
1227-1241
Celestine IV
1241
Innocent IV
1243-1254
Alexander IV
1254-1261
Urban IV
1261-1264
Clement IV
1265-1268
Bl. Gregory X
1271-1276
Bl. Innocent V
1276
Adrian V
1276
John XXI
1276-1277
Nicholas III
1277-1280
Martin IV 9
1281-1285
Honorius IV
1285-1287
Nicholas IV
1288-1292
St Celestine V
1294
Boniface VIII
1294-1303
Bl. Benedict XI
1303-1304
Clement V
1305-1314
John XXII
1316-1334
Nicholas V
1328-1330
Benedict XII
1334-1342
Clement VI
1342-1352
121
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Innocent VI
1352-1362
Bl. Urban V
1362-1370
Gregory XI
1370-1378
Urban VI
1378-1389
Boniface IX
1389-1404
Innocent VII
1404-1406
Gregory XII
1406-1415
Clement VII
1378-1394
Benedict XIII
1394-1423
Alexander V
1409-1410
John XXIII 3
1410-1415
Martin V
1417-1431
Eugene IV
1431-1447
Felix V
1440-1449
3
Nicholas V
1447-1455
Callistus III
1455-1458
Pius II
1458-1464
Paul II
1464-1471
Sixtus IV
1471-1484
Innocent VIII
1484-1492
Alexander VI
1492-1503
Pius III
1503
Julius II
1503-1513
Leo X
1513-1521
Adrian VI
1522-1523
Clement VII
1523-1534
Paul III
1534-1549
Julius III
1550-1555
Marcellus II
1555
Paul IV
1555-1559
Pius IV
1559-1565
St Pius V
1566-1572
Gregory XIII
1572-1585
Sixtus V
1585-1590
Urban VII
1590
Gregory XIV
1590-1591
Innocent IX
1591
Clement VIII
1592-1605
Leo XI
1605
Paul V
1605-1621
Gregory XV
1621-1623
Urban VIII
1623-1644
Innocent X
1644-1655
Alexander VII
1655-1667
Clement IX
1667-1669
122
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
Clement X
1670-1676
Bl. Innocent XI
1676-1689
Alexander VIII
1689-1691
Innocent XII
1691-1700
Clement XI
1700-1721
Innocent XIII
1721-1724
Benedict XIII
1724-1730
Clement XII
1730-1740
Benedict XIV
1740-1758
Clement XIII
1758-1769
Clement XIV
1769-1774
Pius VI
1775-1799
Pius VII
1800-1823
Leo XII
1823-1829
Pius VIII
1829-1830
Gregory XVI
1831-1846
Pius IX
1846-1878
Leo XIII
1878-1903
St Pius X
1903-1914
Benedict XV
1914-1922
Pius XI
1922-1939
Pius XII
John XXIII
1939-1958
3
1958-1963
Paul VI
1963-1978
John Paul I
1978
John Paul II
1978-
* The names of the antipopes are printed in italics.
Bl. Abbreviation of blessed, second title conferred during the process of canonization, declaring the person one of the
blessed.
1 Saint Hippolytus (217-235) was antipope under Callistus I, Urban I, and Pontian. Exiled to Sardinia with Pontian, he was
reconciled with that pope and died a martyr.
2 There is a four-year gap between Marcellinus (296-304) and Marcellus I (308-309). Some historians hold that these two
popes were really the same person; others disagree and maintain that Marcellus I governed the church from 304 to 309.
3 Antipope Felix II (355-365) was anciently considered a legitimate pope. The two numerals following the name of Felix III
(II), who reigned from 483 to 492, and Felix IV (III), who reigned from 526 to 530, indicate Felix II to have been legitimate
(the first numeral) or not (the second numeral); whichever numeral is used will reflect the acceptance or non-acceptance of
the ancient view. Given that Felix V (1440-1449), himself an antipope, did not style himself Felix IV, he evidently
considered Felix II legitimate. The listing of popes is not consistent in this matter. Thus, John XVI (997-998) was an
antipope, and yet the next pope to take the name styled himself John XVII (1003). The opposite also happens, however.
John XXIII (1410-1415) was an antipope; the modern John XXIII (1958-1963) ignored him altogether and took the same
name and numeral. An identical case is that of Antipope Victor IV (1138) and Pope Victor IV (1159-1164).
4 Antipope Lawrence was antipope twice: in 498 and again in 501-505.
5 Stephen (II) was legitimately elected pope in 752, but he died before his episcopal consecration. Because of this
circumstance, he was considered as not having been pope at all. A more recent theology of the papacy has reversed that
opinion, however, and the Annuario Pontificio has listed him as pope since its 1961 edition; hence the two sets of numerals
for the later Stephens, those in parentheses reflecting the newer opinion.
6 John XIX (1024-1032); because of medieval errors in listing, there is no John XX. It may be that Antipope John (?-844)
has confused the list.
123
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
7 The regnal dates of Benedict V (964-966) overlap those of his predecessor, Leo VIII (963-965), and of his successor,
John XIII (965-972). Benedict is nevertheless considered a legitimate pope.
8 Benedict IX (1032-1044, 1045, 1047-1048) was legitimately elected three times and deposed twice.
9 Martin IV (1281-1285); there is neither Martin II nor Martin III. Marinus I (882-884) and Marinus II (942-946) were
listed erroneously as Martin II and Martin III, respectively, and so in 1281 pope-elect Martin chose to be called Martin IV.
Microsoft ® Encarta ® Premium Suite 2005. © 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All
rights reserved.
HOW THE DOCTRINE OF PAPACY CAME ABOUT
(1) The idea was started by the suggestion of Clement of Rome (96 A.D) that Peter and
Paul had been to Rome together. It was firstly a harmless suggestion.615
(2) By the early 3rd century AD, there was “a reference by a Roman presbyter named
Gaius” about “a ‘trophy’ on Vatican hill memorializing the place of Peter's martyrdom or
burial.”616
(3) By the 3rd century, the Roman bishops were already representing themselves as
having succeeded to the primacy that Peter had supposedly enjoyed. 617
(4) By 400 A.D., it was taught that only those bishops who had received their appointment
in succession from the apostles could give out grace.
(5) Leo I (440-461)618 insisted that the bishop of Rome was the founder of the church of
Rome, thus claiming jurisdiction over the whole church.
(6) Gregory I (590-604),619 the leading civilian official of the empire of Rome, undertook
to administer the city with the collapse of imperial authority in northern Italy, and
The story of Peter’s episcopacy in Rome was invented by the editor of the Clementine Romance. Says Dr.
Salmon in his book, Infallibility of the Church: “To return now to the story of Peter’s Roman episcopacy, the
real inventor of the story was an editor of the Clementine Romance, of which I spoke when lecturing on the
New Testament Canon. This work was brought to Rome at the end of the second or beginning of the third
century; and it had then prefixed a letter from Clement to James at Jerusalem, telling how Peter had ordained
him, and set him at his own chair of teaching as bishop of Rome. Though the doctrinal teaching of the
Clementines was rejected as heretical, the narrative part of the book was readily believed; and in particular
this story of Clement’s ordination by Peter was felt to be so honourable to the Church of Rome that it was at
once adopted there, and has been the traditional Roman account ever since. But the adoption of this fable
sadly perplexed the chronology [of Roman Catholic popes]. For according to the list of Irenaeus, Clement
was but the third Roman bishop since the Apostles; and this is confirmed by the internal evidence of
Clement’s epistle, which, according to the judgment of the best critics, cannot be earlier than AD 97. ” (Dr.
Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church, quoted by Samuel Smith, The Claims of Rome, p. 75).
616
MEPS 2005, art. “St. Peter.”
617
Grolier Academic Encyclopedia, 15:63.
618
For his pontificate, see MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
619
For his pontificate, see MEPS 2005, art. “Popes.”
615
124
11 Teachings Concerning Peter, the Papacy & Papal Infallibility
negotiated for its protection with the Lombard invaders threatening it.620 One bishop thus
attained political influence.
(7) In 604 A.D., emperor Phocas first offered the title “pope” (father) to Gregory I. This
he did to spite the bishop of Constantinople. [Phocas had caused the assassination of his
predecessor, emperor Mauritius, and the bishop excommunicated him]. Gregory I,
however, rejected the title. In 607 A.D., the title was offered to Boniface III, Gregory’s
successor as bishop, who took it. That has been the title of the bishop of Rome ever since.
(8) Because of the rise of Islam (which weakened the Byzantine empire) and the threat of
the Lombards over northern Italy, the popes turned to the Frankish rulers for protection. In
754 A.D., the pope received from Pepin the Short, king of the Franks, the Italian territory
later known as the papal states.
(9) In 800 A.D., pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman empire
and was thus assured protection.
(10) In 962 A.D., pope John XII crowned Otto I, German king, as emperor of the revived
Holy Roman empire. Again, the papacy was assured protection.
(11) In 1000 A.D., pope Gregory VII wrote Dictatus Papae in which he claimed that the
pope has power as head of the church over the whole earth.
(12) In 1046 A.D., emperor Henry III deposed three rival claimants to papacy and
appointed a reformist pope who began reforms in the Roman church.
(13) In 1160, Hadrian IV, pope of Rome, humbled the king.
(14) In 1179, the College of Cardinals, which elected the pope, gave him greater authority.
(15) Pope Innocent III (1198-1216) taught the pope is superior to the king.
(16) In 1302, Boniface VIII claimed church control over both spiritual and material
realms.
(17) In 1439, the Council of Florence affirmed the theory that Christ conferred on Peter
the primacy and the papacy.
(18) In 1870, the first Vatican Council defined as matter of faith the Petrine theory. This
council also declared that the pope is infallible.
620
Grolier Academic Encyclopedia, 15:63.
125