Where to begin?

[Solus_Christus]

Sorry for the slow response, but I have been traveling a lot. I can only pop in from time to time.

Again, is baptism of infants essential or optional? Does baptism regenerate the soul or not? I realize you felt the need to respond in some fashion (or risk conceding the field), but this is a non-answer.

It is optional. I confess I do not know much about Methodist doctrine, so if you are saying they believe baptism is essential then I would have to ask you to kindly provide me with a reference to an official document from that denomination.

If you care to see the doctrines that unite Evangelical Protestants, the link to the document I referenced is: seekgod.ca/ec.htm#gospel

 

[Randy_Carson]

Sorry for the slow response, but I have been traveling a lot. I can only pop in from time to time.

It is optional. I confess I do not know much about Methodist doctrine, so if you are saying they believe baptism is essential then I would have to ask you to kindly provide me with a reference to an official document from that denomination.

I was raised in a Methodist home, and I was baptized as an infant. However, as with the Lord’s Supper, Methodists can use what I believe to be intentionally vague language about baptism. Let’s switch to the Lutheran Church…another solidly Protestant group if ever there was one.

Simply Google “Is Baptism Optional Lutheran” and see how many websites you’ll get declaring that Lutheran believe that baptism is not optional.

But the bigger point is this: some Protestants believe it is optional and some do not. Some say baptism is ESSENTIAL and some do not.

The problem of conflicting and contradictory doctrine within Protestantism is obvious. And the scandal of it is worse.

 

[PJM]

=Randy Carson;7664842]I was raised in a Methodist home, and I was baptized as an infant. However, as with the Lord’s Supper, Methodists can use what I believe to be intentionally vague language about baptism. Let’s switch to the Lutheran Church…another solidly Protestant group if ever there was one.

Simply Google “Is Baptism Optional Lutheran” and see how many websites you’ll get declaring that Lutheran believe that baptism is not optional.

But the bigger point is this: some Protestants believe it is optional and some do not. Some say baptism is ESSENTIAL and some do not.

The problem of conflicting and contradictory doctrine within Protestantism is obvious. And the scandal of it is worse.

***This points our clearly why we as Catholics, and a REAL Bible church; struggle with some other faits; to claiming to be “Bible-churches”… ***

John 3:5 [same book and chapter as John 3:16 fyi… John.3

[5] Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, [MEANING A CHRISTIAN BAPTISM ] he cannot enter the kingdom of God”

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Solus_Christus]

I was raised in a Methodist home, and I was baptized as an infant. However, as with the Lord’s Supper, Methodists can use what I believe to be intentionally vague language about baptism. Let’s switch to the Lutheran Church…another solidly Protestant group if ever there was one.

Simply Google “Is Baptism Optional Lutheran” and see how many websites you’ll get declaring that Lutheran believe that baptism is not optional.

But the bigger point is this: some Protestants believe it is optional and some do not. Some say baptism is ESSENTIAL and some do not.

The problem of conflicting and contradictory doctrine within Protestantism is obvious. And the scandal of it is worse.

I cannot speak to your personal experience, but I can say that the document I referenced was endorsed by, and the drafting committee included, members of the Lutheran and Methodist churches (among others). In addition to this document, there are among Evangelicals other broadly accepted documents including the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and The Lausanne Covenant (1974).

 

[Solus_Christus]

Not at all - the only “helpings of tradition” are being added by Protestants - first, by thinking that Jesus was speaking in Greek to His Aramaic-speaking audience, and secondly, that He was using an ancient form of Greek that had been out of use for many centuries, already, and that nobody in His times except for scholars of ancient manuscripts ever even thought of using.

Yes, of course the original discussion was in Aramaic. We were not there to hear the discussion, however, so we have to look at the Greek. If we believe the word of God to be infallible, then we need to understand why different forms of the word were used in the Greek (differences which appear in both the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine manuscripts). As you pointed out, the first time the word “rock” appears in this passage it is in the masculine form and the second time it is in the feminine form. This indicates the two words are referring to separate referents. Moreover, Peter is referred to in the second person in this passage whereas “this rock” is referred to in the third person.

Aside from these details in the inspired text, the RCC boasts great things using this passage. Reading this passage within its context, however, it is necessary to fill in many gaps to arrive at the interpretation of the RCC. For example, this is the only place where Peter is identified as receiving unique authority, assuming the RCC interpretation. Yet, this authority is not really unique because Christ uses the same language when He gave the same authority to all of His disciples in Matthew 18:18. The same is true with Peter being identified as the foundation of the Church. In Ephesians 2:20 the foundation of the Church is identified as being the “apostles and prophets” with Christ as the “cornerstone.” Peter acknowledges this himself in 1 Peter 2:6-8. Of particular note is that in verse 8 Peter uses the feminine form of the word “rock” (petra) when referring to Christ, just as Christ used it in Matthew 16. Finally, keep in mind that in Matthew 16 Christ makes His statement directly after Peter identified Jesus as the Christ. Now, here in 1 Peter 2:8, Peter quotes from Isaiah 8:14 where Isaiah is speaking about the coming Messiah.

It will be difficult, moreover, to rely on the unanimous consent of the Fathers on this one, for in his On the Gospel of John, St. Augustine wrote: “The Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Of course, Augustine did believe in the primacy of Peter and yet He did not see what the RCC reads into this passage today.

Last of all, I have a few questions for you to consider: If Jesus was doing here what the RCC claims He was doing, then why did He not make it more plain? Who was it that finally discovered His meaning? After all it certainly was not apparent to the disciple two chapters later in Matthew 18:1 where they asked Jesus who was the greatest. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to clarify what apparently had not been made clear when He addressed Peter in Matthew 16.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I cannot speak to your personal experience, but I can say that the document I referenced was endorsed by, and the drafting committee included, members of the Lutheran and Methodist churches (among others). In addition to this document, there are among Evangelicals other broadly accepted documents including the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978) and The Lausanne Covenant (1974).

You previously agreed that doctrine is important, and I agree because the Bible is clear on this.

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:1

“whether I come and see you or am absent, I may hear of you that you stand firm in one spirit, with one mind striving side by side for the faith of the gospel” (Philippians 1:27)

“The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and thou in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that thou hast sent me and hast loved them even as thou hast loved me.” (John 17:22-23)

“All the believers were one in heart and mind.” (Acts 4:32)

“There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called—one Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.” (Eph 4:4-6)

“I appeal to you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree with one another so that there may be no divisions among you and that you may be perfectly united in mind and thought.” (1 Corinthians 1:10)
In light of these verses and the clear lack of unity among Protestant denominations over “essential” and non-essential doctrines, can any Protestant reasonably claim to be a member of the one, true Church founded by Jesus Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18-19?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes, of course the original discussion was in Aramaic. We were not there to hear the discussion, however, so we have to look at the Greek. If we believe the word of God to be infallible, then we need to understand why different forms of the word were used in the Greek (differences which appear in both the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine manuscripts). As you pointed out, the first time the word “rock” appears in this passage it is in the masculine form and the second time it is in the feminine form. This indicates the two words are referring to separate referents. Moreover, Peter is referred to in the second person in this passage whereas “this rock” is referred to in the third person.

Let’s start with this…

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

[Randy_Carson]

this authority is not really unique because Christ uses the same language when He gave the same authority to all of His disciples in Matthew 18:18.

This is incorrect. Jesus did confer unique authority upon Peter, and the Apostles (and Early Church Fathers) knew it. Here’s my argument - there is some review from my previous post, but points #5 & #6 are foundational for our discussion:

1. Peter’s understanding that Jesus was the Son of God did not come from working it out on his own. Instead, God the Father infused this revelation into Peter’s mind thus imprinting His seal of approval upon this humble fisherman. Jesus recognized that Simon had already been anointed by His Father in this way and declared, “Blessed are you.” The Father had blessed Simon with knowledge of the Son.
2. Jesus gave him the name, “Kepha”, an Aramaic word that means “rock”. In the original, the passage would read, “You are kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus also announces the establishment of His Church, and clearly delineates Kepha as its leader. Although Jesus spoke Aramaic, the New Testament was written in Greek, and “Kepha” would have been translated into the Greek words for “rock” which are “petra” or “petros”. “Petra” is the feminine form of the masculine word, “petros”. Petros is more suitable for a man. Therefore, from “petros” we derive the English name, “Peter”. For us modern readers then, Jesus’ pronouncement reads, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church.” What is it about Peter’s character that caused Jesus to compare him to something as solid as rock? Isn’t this the same Peter who Jesus called “Satan” just a few verses later? (cf. Mt 16:23) Isn’t this the same Peter who would deny the Lord three times after his arrest? (cf. Lk 22:34) Surely this unstable character is anything but solid rock upon which a Church could be built; yet, Jesus sees something deeper in Peter’s character, and His choice would be vindicated when Peter ultimately received a martyr’s crown via crucifixion.
3. The Church to be built was not of human origin. Jesus did not say, “You are Peter, and upon this rock you must build a church.” He said, “I will build my church.” Inaugurated by the Father, built by the Son and led by the Holy Spirit, the Church is a human institution of divine origin.
4. For this reason, “the gates of Hell will not overcome” the Church, and for over 2,000 years the Church, lead by the Apostolic Successors of Peter, has faithfully borne witness to the gospel.
5. Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads, "In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22) In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”
6. Finally, Jesus reveals the infallible nature of the Church when he declares, “whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." What does this passage mean? There are two possible interpretations. First, if God reciprocates the binding and loosing of Church on earth with an identical binding or loosing in heaven, then the binding and loosing done on earth must of necessity be free from all error. If this were not so, God would have put himself in the impossible situation of affirming that which is not true. A second interpretation would be that the authority of the church is to carry out the will and decisions of God upon earth as they have been established in heaven. This is in perfect accord with the way Jesus instructed us to pray: “Your will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matthew 6:10). Thus, the Church must either be prevented from teaching error in order that God may ratify its decisions in heaven or the Church must be proclaiming here below those things that are already true in heaven. Either way, the decisions and actions of the Church can be seen to be infallible with regard to matters of faith and morals. Anything less would make Jesus a liar for He also declared, “But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13) and “I am with you always till the end of the world.” (Matthew 28:20)

 

[Randy_Carson]

It will be difficult, moreover, to rely on the unanimous consent of the Fathers on this one, for in his On the Gospel of John, St. Augustine wrote: “The Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself also built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus.” Of course, Augustine did believe in the primacy of Peter and yet He did not see what the RCC reads into this passage today.

Oh, you really do not want to go here! I’ll start with Augustine…

Augustine on Peter
catholicconvert.com/Portals/0/Documents/Webster2Augustine.doc

“Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.” (Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51).

“Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” (Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51).

“For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: – Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.” To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

“When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ “Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76

“And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?” In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

“Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.” In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

“And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.” In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513

“[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.” Retractations,1:21(A.D. 427),in GILES, 177

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

More Augustine on Peter

“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.” (Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship.” (On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples.” (On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)

“The authority of Cyprian does not alarm me, because I am reassured by his humility. We know, indeed, the great merit of the bishop and martyr Cyprian; but is it in any way greater than that of the apostle and martyr Peter, of whom the said Cyprian speaks as follows in his epistle to Quintus?

‘For neither did Peter, whom the Lord chose first, and on whom He built His Church, when Paul afterwards disputed with him about circumcision, claim or assume anything insolently and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held the primacy, and should rather be obeyed of those who were late and newly come. Nor did he despise Paul because he had before been a persecutor of the Church, but he admitted the counsel of truth, and readily assented to the legitimate grounds which Paul maintained; giving us thereby a pattern of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own opinions, but should rather account as our own any true and rightful suggestions of our brethren and colleagues for the common health and weal.’(Cyprian, Epistle 76[70]:3)

Here is a passage in which Cyprian records what we also learn in holy Scripture, that the Apostle Peter, in whom the primacy of the apostles shines with such exceeding grace, was corrected by the later Apostle … I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am showing disrespect towards Peter. For who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to any episcopate whatever?” (On Baptism against the Donatist, 2:1,1(A.D. 400),in NPNF1,IV:425-426)

 

[Randy_Carson]

And before Augustine we find…

ECF – Peter the Rock

**Tertullian **

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to *you *the keys, not to the Church; and whatever *you *shall have bound or *you *shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

“Was anything hidden from Peter, who was called the Rock whereon the Church was to be built; who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (De Praescript Haeret, n.22, p. 209, in Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 19, c.A.D. 200-220,)

Cyprian of Carthage (251 A.D.)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 *[A.D. 251]).

**Ambrose **

“[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

And now, my evangelical friend, a few words from your Protestant brethren:

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

---

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

---

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…**one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. **“To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

---

"The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy" (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470).

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Last of all, I have a few questions for you to consider: If Jesus was doing here what the RCC claims He was doing, then why did He not make it more plain? Who was it that finally discovered His meaning? After all it certainly was not apparent to the disciple two chapters later in Matthew 18:1 where they asked Jesus who was the greatest. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to clarify what apparently had not been made clear when He addressed Peter in Matthew 16.

Gee, an easy one. I answered this previously using the passage from Mark.

Mark 9:33-35 – Who is the Greatest?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Note that Jesus did not tell the Apostles that no one would be the head of the Church. He said, “If anyone wants to be first…”. That is not the same as saying “No one will be first”, is it? Instead, He teaches them what the characteristics of the leader must be. According to Jesus, the one who wants to be first must be the servant of all. That is the understanding that we should have concerning the head of the Church. Later, in John 20, for example, we will see Jesus commissioning Peter as the shepherd of the flock. Isn’t Jesus the Good Shepherd? Isn’t there one shepherd and one flock? Of course, but Jesus is able to leave His earthly flock in the capable hands of Peter who is given the responsibility for caring for the flock in Christ’s absence. And that, my friend, is exactly what the Royal Steward of the household was supposed to do in the Davidic kingdom.

By the way, Paul echoes this in the following words:

1 Timothy 3:1
1Here is a trustworthy saying: If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer,a] he desires a noble task.

a] Traditionally bishop; also in verse 2

So, the scriptures do not teach that there will be no overseers or bishops nor does the scripture suggest that no one would be the leader of the Apostolic band.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Last of all, I have a few questions for you to consider: If Jesus was doing here what the RCC claims He was doing, then why did He not make it more plain? Who was it that finally discovered His meaning? After all it certainly was not apparent to the disciple two chapters later in Matthew 18:1 where they asked Jesus who was the greatest. It would have been the perfect opportunity for Jesus to clarify what apparently had not been made clear when He addressed Peter in Matthew 16.

Jesus made it abundantly clear in many places includeing Matthew 16, Luke 22 and in John 21. Here’s how:

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.

 

[Solus_Christus]

Randy, did I mention you type too fast Anyway, thank you for the thoughful responses. I am a little behind but here goes…

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

I did not put this argument forward.

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek

This assumes Matthew’s account was originally written in Aramaic, but it is unclear whether that is true. Either way, the author or translator could also have transliterated the word for rock, as is done in other places, in order to avoid any ambiguity caused by using different forms of the word in the Greek.

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

To which I would reply, once again, if it was so clear in the original Aramaic, why did the disciples appear to be confused over the matter in Matthew 18? If it was clear to Peter, why did it not figure into his description of the Church in 1 Peter 2?

It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

Please note that the notion of papacy is completely absent from this text as well as the rest of the New Testament. In fact, the notion of apostolic succession is nowhere mentioned, let alone primacy of one bishop over the others. In Peter’s first letter he identifies himself simply as a “fellow elder.” He does not even use the term for bishop (episkopay) let alone as the preeminant bishop atop some hierarchy. In Acts we see the traitor Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:25,26), but later when James was martyred in Acts 12:2 there was no attempt made to replace him. Why was a replacement found for Judas only and not James? The answer is given a few verses earlier in chapter 1. First of all, Peter quoted prophecy in the Old Testament to show that Judas’ position was to be filled by another. The same prophecy could not be applied to the other disciples upon their deaths. Secondly, there were a limited number of people who could satisfy the criteria put forth in verses 21 and 22. I agree that Peter was weak, and yet Christ chose him for a leadership role in the early Church. But to attribute infallibility to him (even when speaking ex cathedra), to place him atop some hierarchy (and even to insist on a hierchy), and to say that these unique traits could and would be passed on to successors requires the introduction of ideas foreign to the text of the New Testament. This text simply proves Peter was called to a leadership role. It does not prove infallibility, primacy, or succession.

In short, the text itself does not convey many of the ideas Catholic Tradition ascribes to it. Since we do not have a time machine and have only the Greek text (through excellently preserved manuscripts I might add), we would have to take it on faith that this passage really conveys all of the significance it is purported to convey by the RCC. We know the Bible is the word of God (we both agree on this part), but we must have faith in the RCC that its Tradition is also the word of God. In other words, I must have faith in the men telling me that what they say is the word of God. I do not have faith in the men making this claim, and therefore do not believe them. I would like to understand why you have such faith in what these men taught you when the arguments they use to defend their position depend upon what they are ascribing to the text but is otherwise not evident (or, at least, certainly not clearly).

 

[Randy_Carson]

This assumes Matthew’s account was originally written in Aramaic, but it is unclear whether that is true. Either way, the author or translator could also have transliterated the word for rock, as is done in other places, in order to avoid any ambiguity caused by using different forms of the word in the Greek.

There is good evidence that the Gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic. Both Papias and Irenaeus told us that in the second century. More importantly, and more certainly, Jesus would have spoken his discourse of Matthew 16 in Aramaic, not Greek. Although Greek was the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the first century, most of the Jewish people Jesus spoke to were not fluent in it. They spoke Aramaic.

There is also biblical evidence, in John 1:42, that Jesus used Aramaic in the naming of Peter:

[Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas” (which means Peter).

The name Cephas is an anglicized form of the Aramaic name Kepha, which simply means “rock.” There was no “small rock” to be found in Jesus’ original statement to Peter. Even well-respected Protestant scholars agree on this point. Baptist scholar D. A. Carson writes:

The underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; at most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with a dialect of Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, vol. 8, Zondervan, 368)

Paul uses the name, “Cephas” or “Kepha” throughout 1 Corinthians and Galatians.

To which I would reply, once again, if it was so clear in the original Aramaic, why did the disciples appear to be confused over the matter in Matthew 18?

There was no confusion, and I addressed this in my post on Mark 9 which recounts the same incident as Matthew 18.

If it was clear to Peter, why did it not figure into his description of the Church in 1 Peter 2?

Please note that the notion of papacy is completely absent from this text as well as the rest of the New Testament. In fact, the notion of apostolic succession is nowhere mentioned, let alone primacy of one bishop over the others. In Peter’s first letter he identifies himself simply as a “fellow elder.” He does not even use the term for bishop (episkopay) let alone as the preeminant bishop atop some hierarchy.

Ah…let’s settle this “fellow elder” business, shall we?

Many non-Catholics try to minimize the authority of the Catholic Papacy by pointing to 1 Peter 5:1 where Peter calls himself a “fellow elder” and claiming that Peter was nothing special because he considers himself equal to all the other elders?

However, could it be possible that the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

1 Peter 5:1-7
1To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not greedy for money, but eager to serve; 3not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away. 5Young men, in the same way be submissive to those who are older. All of you, clothe yourselves with humility toward one another, because, "God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble." 6Humble yourselves, therefore, under God’s mighty hand, that he may lift you up in due time. 7Cast all your anxiety on him because he cares for you.

Peter’s desire was that some of the recipients of this letter might have been moved by seeing that he of all people had humbled himself by calling himself a mere “fellow elder”? Would this have inspired them to practice humility, also?

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

 

[Randy_Carson]

In Acts we see the traitor Judas was replaced by Matthias (Acts 1:25,26), but later when James was martyred in Acts 12:2 there was no attempt made to replace him. Why was a replacement found for Judas only and not James? The answer is given a few verses earlier in chapter 1. First of all, Peter quoted prophecy in the Old Testament to show that Judas’ position was to be filled by another. The same prophecy could not be applied to the other disciples upon their deaths. Secondly, there were a limited number of people who could satisfy the criteria put forth in verses 21 and 22.

Matthias was the first of the “new” apostles, but certainly not the last. The New Testament gives a sizeable list of men referred to as “Apostles”.

In addition to the original twelve, scripture mentions Matthias, Paul, Barnabas, Andronicus and Junias, Apollos (possibly), Silas and Timothy.

Acts 1:26 – Matthias
26Then they cast lots, and the lot fell to Matthias; so he was added to the eleven apostles.

Note that the Holy Spirit did not inspire Luke to qualify the election of Matthias in any way.

Acts 14:14 – Paul and Barnabas
But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd,

Gee, Barnabas gets named first here so there is no doubt that the author is designating him to be an apostle, is there?

Romans 16:7 – Andronicus and Junias
Greet Andronicus and Junias, my relatives who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Andronicus and Junias are outstanding among the apostles. Wow. They must have been something special.

2 Corinthians 11:5-6 – Reference to Apollos who was a gifted speaker
5But I do not think I am in the least inferior to those “super-apostles.” 6I may not be a trained speaker, but I do have knowledge.

A clear reference to Apollos (cf. 1 Cor. 1)

1 Thessalonians 1:1 – Silas and Timothy
1Paul, Silas and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ: Grace and peace to you.

1 Thessalonians 2:6
As apostles of Christ we (Paul, Silas and Timothy) could have been a burden to you, 7but we were gentle among you, like a mother caring for her little children.

These two verses suggest that Paul considered Silas and Timothy to be apostles.

Peter, acting under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and by his unique authority, infallibly interpreted the Old Testament prophecies and initiated the replacement of Judas Iscariot.

Not one of the other apostles opposed his exegesis of scripture or his decision.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I agree that Peter was weak, and yet Christ chose him for a leadership role in the early Church. But to attribute infallibility to him (even when speaking ex cathedra), to place him atop some hierarchy (and even to insist on a hierchy), and to say that these unique traits could and would be passed on to successors requires the introduction of ideas foreign to the text of the New Testament. This text simply proves Peter was called to a leadership role. It does not prove infallibility, primacy, or succession.

Each of these three attributes requires a lengthy explanation. I’ll focus on the latter just for a change of pace.

Apostolic Succession Proved from Scripture and History

Many people deny that the modern Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus promised to build (cf. Mt. 16:18-19) claiming that the doctrine of Apostolic Succession is not found in the Bible. Is this argument valid?

Let’s begin by examining the evidence contained in scripture as well as the non-scriptural writings of the earliest Christians for evidence of Apostolic Succession. The Bible contains clear indications that the Apostle Paul taught Apostolic Succession to his disciples and fellow workers, Timothy, Titus and Clement. Here are the relevant passages:

2 Timothy 2:1-2
You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

In the passage above, there are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach. Paul commanded Timothy to hand on the gospel to reliable men and further to ensure that those men would also hand on the gospel reliably.

Titus 1:5
The reason I left you in Crete was that you might straighten out what was left unfinished and appoint elders in every town, as I directed you.

In the passage above, we see that Paul was concerned with the appointing of capable leaders in the Cretan church. So in addition to his concern for the content of the message, he is concerned with the succession of the leadership, as well.

Philippians 4:3
Yes, and I ask you, loyal yokefellow, help these women who have contended at my side in the cause of the gospel, along with Clement and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.

In the passage from Philippians, Paul mentions one of his fellow workers, Clement, who was ordained by the Apostle Peter and later became the fourth Bishop of Rome (after Peter, Linus, and Anacletus). Like Paul, who addressed to epistles to the Church of Corinth, Clement wrote his own letter to the Corinthians around 80 AD. In that letter, he stated:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (*Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

“We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. (ibid.)

From these two passages, we can see that Clement had witnessed his mentors, the Apostles Peter and Paul, naming men to the office of Bishop and had received instructions from them that other men should succeed those Bishops appointed by the Apostles in the event that these first Bishops should die. Thus, history records that both the Apostles and their disciples such as Clement, Timothy and Titus understood and followed the practice of appointing successors to the Apostles in the Church.

While many seem to believe that anyone with a Bible may become a “pastor” by simply gathering around himself a group of fellow believers to form a church, the Bible itself teaches that true leaders in the Church of Jesus Christ must be ordained by those who were ordained before them. This process, known as Apostolic Succession, maintains an unbroken chain of continuity from Jesus, Peter and the Apostles to the leaders of the early Church.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The writings of other members of the early Church supports the idea of continuing Apostolic Succession. For example, the Apostle John discipled a man known today as Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp, in turn, discipled a man known as Irenaeus of Lyons. Around 180 AD, Irenaeus recorded the names of the leaders of the early church beginning with Peter down to his own day; thus, we have the following from a second-century (pre-Constantinian) Christian with impeccable credentials:

“3The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us.” (Against Heresies 3.3.3, [A.D. 180])

In this passage, Irenaeus traces the succession of the early Christian Church leaders from Peter down to Eleutherus in his own day—a span of approximately 120 years. Using other historical records, we can continue to trace the leadership of that same Church from Eleutherus all the way down to Pope Benedict XVI today.

The existence and leadership of this Church is well-documented and unassailable historical fact. The connection between the modern Catholic Church and the pre-Constantinian Church of Peter, James and John is undeniable.

These early eyewitness accounts together with the testimony of Sacred Scripture prove the doctrine of Apostolic Succession and the existence of the Catholic Church prior to Constantine, and they drive a stake through the heart of any argument that the New Testament churches were independent of one another and not actually local congregations of the One Church led by the local Bishops in union with the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter.