Papacy Rebuttal Period

The Peter Syndrome and Misreadings of the Fathers

Now, you were directed to a book I happen to own as well, called Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. This book is the single best example you could ever find of what's called the Peter Syndrome. The Peter Syndrome is a deadly disease rampant amongst modern Roman Catholic apologists.

And it is the disease that makes you see every reference to Peter anywhere in an early father as somehow relevant to the bishop in Rome. Even if that father never makes that connection himself, never shows that he believes the bishop of Rome is the vicar of Christ on earth, never says that Peter's successors sit only on the seat in Rome, it doesn't matter.

As long as an early father says something nice about Peter, therefore he is in support of the bishop of Rome. I am serious. I have read the book. I had this material before it was published. And it was said that this saves you some legwork only if you want to see only those passages from a father, not if you want to see everything the father has to say on an issue.

And in fact, I would suggest if you actually look into the early fathers and read them as a whole, if you want some other works, I would suggest Denny's work on papalism, Salmon's book on the infallibility of the church.

Yeah, they're hard to get hold of these days, but they can provide you with far more extensive and fair citations that do not misrepresent the issue. And of course, in the back, someone's holding up Jesus, Peter, and the keys by a friend, Bill Webster, which would also help you in that way.

Scripture as the Ultimate Authority and the Challenge to Vatican I

Now, I must emphasize to you, we cannot deal with this issue tonight on the level of, well, it was just a development. It was just a matter of potential. Do Roman Catholics believe Vatican I, believe Leo XIII, or not?

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Mitch Pacwa, and so I'm not going to believe that he doesn't believe those sources. Those sources are what lay the foundation for the debate tonight. Last year, I agree with my ultimate authority.

My ultimate authority is the scripture, so I'll be held accountable for what it says. Well, if the ultimate authority for the Roman Catholic is the infallible magisterium of the church, the infallible magisterium says, it's always been understood this way, this has been the faith of every generation, then I would submit to you that the development hypothesis made so popular by John Henry Cardinal Newman is an abandonment of the field of historical battle.

And it is a tacit recognition that if you actually look at the early church, you will not find the early fathers believing everything that Vatican I said. And I reiterate my challenge. Show me one early father that believed that Jesus, in Matthew 16, says that Peter's the rock, that by doing so, he's setting Peter apart from all the other apostles, that he gives to Peter alone the keys, that these are separate from the power of binding and loosing, that Peter then becomes the bishop of Rome, and that the only successors to which these words are relevant are the successors of Peter in Rome, not any place else, and that this establishes the bishops of Rome as the universal head of the church.

Show me one man outside of the bishop of Rome himself that ever claimed that for himself in the first five centuries. You can't do it because nobody did. They did not believe that. Now, some examples.

Clement and Justification by Faith Alone

Father Pacwa talked about Clement. I suggest you read the epistle of Clement to the Corinthians. You'll find all through there. In fact, I failed badly, and I will admit this in front of you all. I failed badly when I debated Father Pacwa on a question he asked me once about justification by faith.

There's a great passage on justification by faith alone in Clement. I just wanted to make up for that error. In fact, someone here this evening pointed that out to me years ago electronically, and now I'm correcting that.

Read it.

It talks about all sorts of wonderful things, but you know what you find out when you read Clement? There's a multiplicity of elders in Rome at this time. Clement doesn't say, I is the bishop of Rome.

There's a multiplicity of elders. This is extremely important. Patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly has written a fascinating work entitled The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. One of the striking features that many seem to miss in working through this reference source is to be found as an example in his entry on Anacletus, who Kelly notes is second in the earliest succession list, which did not include Peter as bishop of Rome, reflecting Irenaeus' statement that Peter and Paul made Linus the first bishop, and third on the later list that introduced the novelty of Peter as the first bishop.

The word seems so innocuous that one might well miss their impact. Listen, quote, His actual functions and responsibilities can only be surmised for the monarchial or one-man episcopate had not yet emerged in Rome.

End quote. Did you catch that? Kelly notes in the days of Anacletus, in fact, all the way into the middle of the second century, there was no one monarchial episcopate in Rome. This truth is reflected in Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, where a plurality of elders is seen.

Ignatius as well makes no mention of a bishop when he writes to Rome, and this fact has been generally acknowledged to be the case. But think about what this means. We are told that Peter's supposed authority is invested in his successors as bishop singular of the Church of Rome, yet the historical fact is that the Church of Rome didn't think she needed a single bishop until a century after Peter had died.

Indeed, the confusion of later succession lists may well be due to the fact that later men, assuming that there had always been just one bishop at Rome, attempted to trace such a succession through the early period when, in fact, there had been multiple bishops or elders at Rome.

Are we to believe that Peter did not give proper instructions to the Church so as to have one bishop elected to whom could be given the keys of heaven itself? Can we imagine what the conciliarists of the 15th century would have done with this information?

Obviously, we see that the Church of Rome felt no need to have a single bishop, a single supposed successor to Peter or Paul or anyone else, and that is highly, highly significant. Father Paco also mentioned Tertullian, making a statement about what Tertullian stated, but I would again suggest you read what Tertullian actually said.

He absolutely, rapaciously regales the Bishop of Rome, insulting the Bishop of Rome, calling him Pontifex Maximus, which in those days was the chief priest of the pagan cults, and calling him Bishop of Bishops, and every word that he used was meant to be the worst insult it could be, and the amazing thing about Church history is, a thousand years later, those are titles that the Bishop of Rome actually wears.

Yet, when they were first used by Tertullian, he was insulting the Bishop of Rome and saying that he was teaching falsehood. Cyprian, very shortly before his martyrdom, Cyprian presided over the 7th Council of Carthage, which gives us the following information, for neither does any of us set himself up as a Bishop of Bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience, since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another.".

Sound like they believed in the Roman primacy? It is easy to recognize a reference to Stephen, the Bishop of Rome with whom Cyprian had clashed in previous years, in the rebuke of the title Bishop of Bishops.

Cyprian, Peter's Chair, and Episcopal Equality

Why is this important? Because Cyprian is truly one of the greatest obstacles to any serious acceptance of Roman claims regarding papal primacy. While he is often cited by Roman apologists, it is only at the expense of the fullness of his teaching that this is done, and that's what you get in a book like this.

You see, Cyprian was one of the minority of the early fathers who saw Peter as the rock of Matthew 16. Indeed, he saw Peter as the symbol of ecclesiastical unity, and because of this, some of his words, if relieved of their context, lend support to Roman contentions.

However, a full examination of Cyprian's words and actions is the death knell for Roman pretensions in regards to Cyprian. First, we note Cyprian's rejection of Stephen's claims to authority over the North African seas in his own words, quote, "'Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the bearing of his conscience, even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen, our colleague, placed at a distance and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate for which he had been righteously deposed.'".

Cyprian rejected Stephen's meddling in the affairs of the North African church. Now, how can this be if Cyprian saw Peter as the rock? The answer is devastating to the Roman Catholic position. Cyprian believed that every bishop, himself included, was fulfilling the role of Peter as the rock.

In Epistle 26 of Cyprian, he makes this very claim, citing Matthew 16, 18, with reference to all bishops, nowhere mentioning the bishop of Rome alone. Such passages led John Meyendorff to note, quote, "'In fact, however, Cyprian's view of Peter's chair,' which Father Pacwa mentioned, was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome, but to every bishop within each community.

Thus, Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy, but that of his own authority as successor of Peter in Carthage.'". We can only wholeheartedly agree with the words of Dr. Cox, who, commenting on Cyprian's treatise on the unity of the church, said the following, "'Compare this treatise of Cyprian, then with any authorized treatise on the subject proceeding from modern Rome, and it will be seen that the two systems are irreconcilable.

Thus, in few words, says the confession of Pius IV, quote, "'I acknowledge the Holy Catholic Apostolic Roman Church for the mother and mistress of all churches, and I promise true obedience to the bishop of Rome, successor to St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and vicar of Jesus Christ,' end quote.

This is the voice of Italy in the 9th century, but Cyprian speaks for ecumenical Christendom in the 3rd, and the two systems are as contrary as darkness and light,' end quote.".