Subscribe | Recommend | Blog | Reply | Printable | Archive
Number 95 | February 20, 2007

Upon this Sand: Peter and the Papacy

I have a 25-30 minute commute to and from work each day, and during that time, I enjoy listening to audio books or talk radio. I have particularly enjoyed publications in The Modern Scholar series, college-level lectures on a variety of topics. This issue of ET&N was prompted by one of those audio sets - Upon this Rock: The History of the Papacy from Peter to John Paul II by Professor Thomas F. Madden, Chair of the Department of History at St. Louis University. Professor Madden is an acknowledged expert in the Crusades, and the lectures detailed the medieval papacy were outstanding. On the other hand, the first lecture ("The See of Peter") revealed Madden's Catholic bias and ignorance of early church history. It sounded as if he were merely reading a Vatican tract.

Those of you who are regular readers of ET&N may have recognized that a particular concern of mine lies in the structure (see ET&N 10) and nature (see ET&N 76) of leadership in the church. In this issue, I want to address the horribly misguided concept of the papacy.

The Roman Catholic Church insists that "Christ...established the Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head" ("The Pope" in Catholic Encyclopedia, online at www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm). The statement in itself is absolutely correct—the church does have a single supreme head. The error of Catholicism lies in the contention that the single supreme head is the Pope rather than simply Christ Himself.

Peter

Professor Madden begins the first lecture announcing a "look at the very beginning of the papacy, and for that we need to go to the very beginning of Christianity - to Jesus Christ and to His apostles." Thus, he begins with the error perpetrated by men seeking power and continued for centuries by the Roman Catholic Church.

The root of Catholic claims lie in the single biblical passage in the Gospel of Matthew quoted by Madden:

Catholic interpretation of verses 18-19 insists that (1) Jesus designated Peter as the head of the church, (2) He gave Peter authority to open and close access to the kingdom, and (3) that authority was unlimited, permanent, and hereditary. All three of these assertions are false. Professor Madden suggests that Peter leadership position began even before his "great confession."

"It appears fairly early on that Jesus relied on him (Peter) a fair amount," Madden says. "And Jesus Himself frequently singles Peter out in a way that He does not single out the other apostles." Madden then uses the Transfiguration (see Matthew 17:1-9) and the Agony in the Garden (Matthew 26:36-43) as supposed examples of this, but in both of these events, Peter was not "singled out" at all! In both cases, James and John were there as well, so Peter was "tripled out." This kind of disingenuous non sequitur is bad scholarship and, in this case, bad ecclesiology. Throughout "The See of Peter" lesson, Madden misrepresents the facts, while blatantly omitting other relevant information. Another example of that is his comment that "On the first day after His resurrection, Jesus appeared to Peter alone." He fails to mention, however, that Jesus first appeared to a group of women and the disciples (including Peter) didn't believe them. Peter had to go look for himself (Luke 24:1-12).

"It is clear throughout the New Testament that Peter was considered in some way to be the leader of the Twelve," Madden also says. He uses terms like "in some way" several times throughout the lecture, but never explores any form of leadership other than authoritative headship. He correctly describes Peter as "a man of great passion and devotion" with "a streak of recklessness, of impulsivity..." but fails to discuss how these characteristics interact with the form Peter's leadership took.

There is little doubt that Peter was the primary spokesman for the apostles in the early days of the church, beginning on Pentecost, when Peter delivers the first church sermon to masses of Jews drawn by the visible arrival of the Holy Spirit. Being a spokesperson, however, does not make one a leader and in some ways Peter failed at critical leadership opportunities. Most notable among these is his failure to fully grasp the inclusiveness of Christianity and to act on God's specific instruction. God clearly expects Peter to expand apostolic evangelism beyond the Jewish community. Peter gets God's point in the vision of unclean food (Acts 10:9-28) and his comments were influential at the Jerusalem council (Acts 15:2-20), yet when given the opportunity to act on this knowledge, Peter hedges, refusing to eat with Gentile Christians in Antioch (Galatians 2:11-14). And speaking of the Jerusalem council, Madden also failed to mention that it was not Peter, but James the Just (Jesus' brother) who made the final decision to loose Gentile Christian from the Law. If Peter has the exclusive keys, why would James make such a decision?

The notion that Jesus gave leadership of his church exclusively to Peter is nothing short of ridiculous. The Catholic church bases its claim primarily on Jesus' word play in Matthew 16:18 ("you are Peter (Greek for 'rock'), and on this rock"), suggesting that the second rock in this verse - the one on which Jesus will build his church - is a sometimes reckless, impulsive man who would attempt to thwart Jesus' destiny (Matthew 16:21-23; John 18:10-11) and would deny Him (Luke 22:54-60). Note in the Matthew 16:21-23 passage, which immediately follows Peter's confession, Jesus calls Peter "Satan" - is this an appropriate name for one who had just been given authority? God sometimes does surprising, even shocking, things that run counter to human wisdom, but relying on one man and his successors to guide the church would be foolish.

Most importantly, the contention that a single human being and his successors are the gateway to the kingdom negates both the resurrection and the Holy Spirit. When Jesus rose, He lived again and He lives now to serve as intercessor and advocate for His followers. If Jesus lives, what purpose does a pope serve? Furthermore, Jesus promised His disciples as guide and counselor in the form of the Holy Spirit, who indwells every believer at the moment of conversion. Of what value is such a guide if authority rests in a single human leader?

Peter was a great man who rose above his own sandy characteristics to serve Jesus faithfully until his death, but he was not the single leader of the apostles, and certainly not of the entire church. That is completely demonstrated even without considering the vocabulary of Matthew 16:18. When Jesus says, "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church," he uses two different words. In the Greek, Peter is Petros, while the rock is petra. Papal apologists like Madden claim that Jesus' original words in Aramaic would be the same word, Cephas, but that is an unsubstantiated assumption, and it simply ignores the facts. If Jesus had said, "You are Cephas, and on this cephas I will build my church," the Greek texts would read, "You are Petros, and on this petros I will build my church." The fact that the Greek texts use different words creates the inescapable conclusion that Jesus did not use the same word.

If Peter is not the rock (petra), what is? To his Jewish disciples, the answer would have been clear because, while not Torah scholars, they were certainly familiar with Scripture (what we call the Old Testament). They demonstrated that knowledge throughout the book of Acts. Throughout their Scripture, the "Rock" is God Himself (see, for example, Deuteronomy 32:3-4; 1 Samuel 2:2; 2 Samuel 22:2; Psalm 18:2; 31:3; Isaiah 26:4). Peter has just confessed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God" - God Himself, in fact - and it is this accurate recognition of Jesus' identity on which Jesus builds His church. It is faith in Christ, as the Son of the Living God, that makes each Christian a building block of the church.

Jesus used a parable to illustrate the importance of the rock on which the church is built: "'Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock [petra]. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock [petra]. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand [ammos]. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it'" (Matthew 7:24-27, see also Luke 6:47-49). The only rock that Jesus would recognize as strong enough to withstand the storms of life is God the Father. "All (humans) have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23). Building a church on any individual, even an apostle, would be building the house on sand.

The writer of the Shepherd of Hermas (ca 100-160) understood individual members as the building blocks of the church. One of the visions in the book distinguishes between the kinds of stones employed in the construction with those set aside or destroyed, but what may be most important for this discussion is that this writer, a member of the church in Rome (where Peter was allegedly the first "bishop"), fails to mention Peter at all.

Origen, writing about 245, emphatically denies any unique commission for Peter:

Origen had some odd allegorical notions when it came to Scripture, but on this point at least, he got it right! As you will see below, Madden and other papists quote a number of early church fathers in support of the papacy, but he failed to mention either Hermas or Origen.

Bishop of Rome

Even if Jesus had designated Peter as the sole, supreme head of the church, the legitimacy of the papacy also depends on proof that Peter served as the first "bishop of Rome."

It is impossible to unequivocally identify the first real pope, someone who claimed authority over the universal church. Many scholars nominate Gregory I (540-604), also known as "the Great." Siricius (d. 398) may have used the title. My own candidate is Victor I (served 189-198) for reasons I will explain. Up until at least 116, there could be no "pope" because it isn't even clear that Rome had a single bishop! On things for certain, Peter was not the first bishop of Rome.

I've written about church leadership before (see ET&N 10 and 76), so I won't belabor the point here, but there was no distinction between elders (Greek, presbuteros), pastors/shepherds (poimen), and overseers/bishops (episkopē) in the apostolic church. Even a cursory examination of Paul's speech to the Ephesians elders (Acts 20:17-28). From Miletus, he summons the Ephesian elders (presbuteros, v. 17) - note that this is plural. He tells them they are overseers (episkopē, v. 28) of the flock and that they are "to care for" (pastor, shepherd, poimano, v. 28) the church. He again uses presbuteros and episkopē interchangeably in Titus 1:5-7). The separation of a single bishop from the eldership is an unbiblical invention of men. Paul taught this, and Peter certainly understood this. Peter could not hold an office (bishop) that did not exist in his lifetime.

Madden erroneously claims that "Christians...in the first days of the church were organized into larger communities with elders and then an overseer who would eventually become the bishop." This is simply false on two counts. First, Christians were not "organized" into larger communities "in the first days." Paul's greetings to the church in Rome (Romans 16:3-15) reveals five or six small groups meeting in homes. Second, as I proved above, there was no distinction between elders and bishops. Presbuteros is a description of a characteristic (older men), while episkopē is a description of a role (oversight).

We have no definitive proof that Peter ever visited Rome, although the traditions are strong. The likelihood that Peter visited Rome at some point, however, hardly proves that he held any official office there. In Scripture, no apostle ever claimed the office of bishop or elder. They were clearly charged with being worldwide messengers of the Gospel (evangelists). Serving as an elder might be viewed as an abdication of the apostolic role. Settling down in a city to shepherd a local church does not really serve an apostolic/evangelistic role. Note: there is an elder John who apparently resided in Ephesus after the destruction of Jerusalem. This John was almost certainly a student of John, the apostle, and perhaps the writer of the Johannine letters.

Madden claims that Peter "had some kind of authority" (more equivocation) in Rome and of course. To "prove" Peter's role in Rome, Madden cites Ignatius's comment (in his letter to Rome, written about 110 A.D.) that "I do not command you, as Peter and Paul did." If one is going to use this comment to prove oversight, one must conclude that both Peter and Paul were "bishops" in Rome, yet Madden tries to use it to prove Peter's episcopate. More to the point, Ignatius himself proves the answer to what kind of authority Peter and Paul had in the very next sentence of the letter (which Madden omitted): "They were apostles of Jesus Christ."

While we're discussing Ignatius, another point (one ignored by Madden) bears mentioning. Ignatius wrote seven letters en route to Rome, where he was apparently executed. One of Ignatius's primary points is an insistence on obedience to bishops, presbyters and deacons (he seems to have been the first to make the distinction), so in five of the six letters to churches (the seventh was to Polycarp individually), he specifically mentions their bishop (Onesimus in Ephesus, Damas in Magnesia, Polybius in Tralles, Polycarp in Smyrna, and an unnamed young bishop in Philadelphia). In one letter - to Rome - he fails to make any mention whatsoever of the church's bishop. The reason for this is simple, according to several scholars - there was none. The Roman church at the time was largely fractured by persecution and heresy, and no individual was recognized as leader of the entire church! The Catholic church claims a succession of Peter (32-67), Linus (67-76), Anacletus or Cletus (76-88), Clement (88-97), Evaristus (97-105), and Alexander I (105-115), but at least these first six could not have been bishop of Rome because there was no city-wide church. Furthermore, documentation of at least the first three "successors" to Peter is so hopelessly confused as to be meaningless (more on this below).

Madden also quotes Irenaeus on the subject of a Roman Petrine bishopric: "The blessed apostles (Peter and Paul) then founded and reared up this church (Rome) and afterwards committed unto Linus the office of the bishop." Madden attributes the Irenaeus quote to the year 116, and this is his most egregious error in the lecture. Irenaeus' year of birth is not known, but the earliest estimate is 115! The quote Madden uses comes from Irenaeus' Against Heresies, which was written in about 177, two generations later than Madden claims.

A sixty-year discrepancy in a document more than 1800 years old may not seem like much, but it is very significant. In 116, there were still people alive who had heard the apostles themselves, particularly John, who lived to about 100. These are people who have firsthand knowledge of the legitimacy of Irenaeus' claims. Sixty years later, however, two more generations have passed, and there would be very few who even heard students of the apostles. Madden's revisionist date - repeated twice - may simply be shoddy scholarship, but it smacks of a blatant attempt to falsely place Irenaeus' writing within the sub-apostolic period.

Madden also quotes Cyprian of Carthage (ca. 250): "The chair of Peter, the principle church, the very source of episcopal unity," yet he omits another Cyprian quote: "(Jesus) gave equal power to all the apostles" (based on the post-resurrection breathing of the Holy Spirit in John 20:22). Cyprian could have made the same claim based on Matthew 18:18, when Jesus extended binding and loosing authority to His other disciples. In the same passage, Jesus says, "where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them" without any requirement for a bishop.

Of all the misbegotten concepts that emerged early in church history (but clearly after the apostolic age) perhaps the most damaging is the one that created two classes of Christians. Clergy were attributed with intercessionary prerogatives and sacramental exclusivity. The Greek root of the word "clergy" (kleros), means "a portion or inheritance." Scripture makes it clear that the inheritance of eternal life is a gift of God promised to all believers. For example:

"Whatever you do, do your work heartily, as for the Lord rather than for men, knowing that from the Lord you will receive the reward of the inheritance (kleros). It is the Lord Christ whom you serve" (Colossian 3:23-24)

"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, to obtain an inheritance (kleros) which is imperishable and undefiled and will not fade away, reserved in heaven for you, who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time" (1 Peter 1:3-5).

The word "laity" comes from the Greek laos, meaning "people." Most often it is used simply to mean a group, but it is also used for God's people, as in 1 Peter 2:9: "A people (laos) for God's own possession". The inheritance (kleros) is for all of God's people (laos). For a specialized class to rhetorically claim some unique right to this inheritance by usurping the word is biblically unsupportable. The biblical model for the church, most notably portrayed by Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, is an organism. In a functional body, every part has its role but none can be deemed more important than another except the head, which in the case of the church, is Christ Jesus.

While it has softened its tone recently, the historic position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no salvation outside the authority of the pope, a heinous misrepresentation specifically and unequivocally contradicted by Scripture, as stated by Peter himself: "'This Jesus is the stone that was rejected by you, the builders, which has become the cornerstone. And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved'" (Acts 4:11-12).

Rome

Even if Jesus had designated Peter as the sole, supreme head of the church AND Peter served as the single overseer of the Roman church, the legitimacy of the papacy also depends on proof of the supremacy of Rome over all other churches in Christendom.

Consider: God sent His Son to a backwater province of the Roman Empire, yet intended for the church He established through His ministry, death, burial and resurrection to be based in the most secular, pagan, hedonistic city in the world. Jesus' ministry was primarily to Jews, but God wanted Rome, site of a very small Jewish community that was expelled from the city just a few years after the Resurrection to be the center of His people. Jesus was most sympathetic to the underclasses in Jewish society (women, prostitutes, tax-collectors, lepers), yet His church is supposed to based among the wealthy and elite of the Empire. Admittedly, God sometimes does some very surprising things, but not downright silly!

When Professor Madden comes to the supremacy of the Roman church, he presents just two pieces of flimsy, selective evidence. The first is a letter written by Clement of Rome to the church in Corinth. Clement was apparently a leader of the Roman church since he writes on her behalf, but dispute Catholic claims, there is no indication in his letter that Clement was bishop of Rome. Word had reached Rome that a few apparently headstrong young men have set alternate leadership to the established Corinthian elders for some unknown reason. Clement appeals to the Corinthians to restore their leaders. The letter is generally dated to 95-96 A.D., although some have argued for a date well into the second century.

Madden says, "it's clear from this letter that Clement is taking a direct role in the community at Corinth and also that he is not willing to allow the deposition of these bishops, and there are no other bishops writing letter like this." On the contrary, Clement's role is not at all clear. Clement never claims to be pope, nor even bishop, and he refers to the bishops and elders of Corinth interchangeably. Madden implies that Clement's primary focus was on the legitimacy of the Corinthian leaders based on their apostolic succession, but this is only one of several points Clement makes. Others include the youth of the dissenting faction in Corinth, the entire church's approval of the deposed leaders, and their faithful service. Clement makes no claim of authority over the Corinthian church. Because of Paul, there was a connection between the churches, and Clement's letter makes sense only as an appeal to their common heritage.

Madden's presumption of Clement's perceived right to chastise the Corinthian church in no way indicates that the Corinthian church recognizes any such right. There is no historical evidence that Corinth paid any attention to Clement's letter at all. Clement's concern may well have been more for his own position. If word got out that a major church like Corinth had rebelled against its leaders, he may have feared a similar incident in Rome. This is particularly plausible given the known disarray of the Roman church in the late first and early second century.

Madden's primary evidence for early Roman supremacy is yet another instance of his selective presentation. It comes from late in the second century, when Victor I (papal reign claimed to be 189-198) threatened to excommunicate Asian churches over the date of Easter. The Roman tradition was to celebrate Christ's Resurrection on the Sunday following Passover, while the Asian churches, claiming a tradition from John, celebrated on Passover itself. Victor surveyed churches across the Empire and found that the majority favored the Roman tradition, so he ordered the Asian to conform.

Madden admits that "we don't know precisely what happened next with regards to this dispute," adding, "it's not really that important." What Madden failed to mention, however, is something we do know because it is preserved by Eusebius. Irenaeus of Lyons - the same person Maddens employs as evidence of papal authority - wrote to Victor and challenged him, stating that the Asians should be allowed to continue their tradition because the important apostolic principle was unity on the essentials! In another example of circular thinking, Madden claims that "the fact that this is a threat at all that the bishop of Asia would react to...suggest again the importance of the Roman See." Again Madden ignores Irenaeus' challenge. It is entirely plausible that bishops in Asia would react to Rome's presumption because of either (1) their own claim of apostolic authority and succession and/or (2) their interest in maintaining unity.

[As an aside, perhaps those of us who reject the papal claims should join with our ancient Asian ancestors and celebrate the Lord's death, burial and resurrection on Passover as a protest over Victor's attitude and the Roman Catholic demands. Just a thought...]

Madden also excludes Irenaeus' discussion of an earlier confrontation on the date of Easter. Polycarp, leader of the Asian church in Smyrna, traveled to Rome in about 155 because of his concern about a variety of heresies that had arisen in the capital. There, he met with his Roman counterpart, Anicetus. One of the things they discussed was the date of resurrection celebration (the same dispute Victor I addressed). Irenaeus reports, "....neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp not to observe what had had always observed,...neither could Polycarp persuade Anicetus to observe it (as he had)." Clearly, Polycarp did not recognize Anicetus's authority over their tradition, and despite the dispute, Anicetus showed his respect for Polycarp by having him administer the eucharist in the Roman church (Eusebius V,XXIV.16-17). Madden's claim that "clearly there's an understanding by 116 A.D. of Rome being the successor of Peter and of having...special authority" is false since the Polycarp-Anicetus dispute proves that no "special authority" existed in 155.

Madden does quote Irenaeus to write of "the great and illustrious church, founded and organized at Rome by the two glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, and to the faith declared to mankind and handed down to our own time through its bishops and their succession. For unto this church, on account of its commanding position, every church...must needs resort." Madden fails to point out Irenaeus's glaring error in claiming the Roman church was founded by Peter and Paul, the foundation of his argument. Since that premise is false, the entire statement is null. Furthermore, as we shall see, the succession from Peter was broken at the very beginning.

Madden also fails to mention the writings of Tertullian from the early third century. Tertullian was initially a strong supporter of Roman supremacy, but he later became disenchanted with church leadership - particularly that in Rome - and joined the severe Montanist movement, considered a heresy. In other words, he left the Catholic church supposedly headed by the pope.

Placing the supreme church in Rome would likely lead to a church that would be more a reflection of Roman institutions and culture than God's Kingdom, and that's precisely what happened. It rapidly became an institution (albeit an outlaw one until Constantine) with a structure identical to that of the Empire, rather than the organism God intends. Madden suggests that the hierarchical organization within and between churches "makes logical sense," but he is erroneously viewing the church as a human organization, which is the foundational flaw of the Roman Catholic Church. Just as a body can have but one head to function properly, so too the church (the body of Christ) can have only one head, and that is Christ Jesus Himself. Not Peter or any of his so-called successors who claim absolute authority over the faithful and their salvation through the sacraments held hostage by an unbiblical clergy and the redemptive works mandated by the Roman Catholic Church. I won't claim, as some do, that the Roman Catholic Church is the tool of the devil but if not, it is unwittingly doing his work!

Apostolic Succession

Even if Jesus had designated Peter as the sole, supreme head of the church AND Peter served as the single overseer of the Roman church AND God chose Rome as the principle seat of His church, the legitimacy of the papacy also depends on proof that God intended for Peter's authority to be handed down. Roman Catholic apologetics claim an unbroken chain of authority from Peter to Benedict XVI, but the alleged chain was broken at the very beginning. I have already shown that Peter cannot be considered a bishop and therefore not a "pope," so the chain doesn't even have a first link. But historically, Catholic documents do not even agree on his most immediate successors.

Irenaeus claims that Peter was followed by Linus, Anacletus (or Cletus), and Clement. Augustine reverses Anacletus and Clement, while Tertullian cites documentation that Clement was ordained by Peter himself. That any apostolic succession was broken time and again in later centuries becomes irrelevant when it never even began! One can understand Irenaeus interest in promoting apostolic succession because he lived at a time when the canon of the New Testament had not yet been firmly established. One could not point authoritatively to a single set of apostolic writings, so oral tradition was still important, as it had been in Jewish tradition. The "deposit of faith" was therefore attributed to the apostles and successors designated by the apostles.

Even before the papacy genuinely emerged, however, apostolic teaching was canonized in the New Testament, eliminating the need for any successive guardians of an oral deposit of faith. It is not surprising that the Roman Catholic Church sought to prohibit believers' access to apostolic writings for centuries, claiming that only an ordained priest was qualified to interpret Scripture and opposing translation of the Bible into the vernacular. The Roman Catholic Church had strayed so far from apostolic teaching and Jesus's own words, that access posed a huge threat to its power. The continued existence of Roman Catholicism is, unfortunately, a testament to the appeal of superstition, power, and ceremony as opposed to the simple liberating message of a Jewish carpenter.

Fruits of the Papacy

Mass; Transubstantiation; Mary-worship (immaculate conception and assumption); a priestly caste; celibacy; catechism; infant baptism; a rigid hierarchy consisting of bishops, archbishops, deacons, archdeacons, priests, etc.; purgatory; penance and rosary beads; Saints; Bingo nights; obligatory feasts and fasts; vestments; concubines and illegitimate children; cathedrals; crusaders; indulgences; feudal lords; charlatans and aristocrats. The list of Roman Catholic errors, inventions, corruption, and abuses is almost endless.

There are wonderful people who are Catholics, and some do great works for the sake of Christ. At the same time, Catholicism appears to be the religion of choice for the Mafia. We all fall short, of course, and there are reprobates in every corner of Christianity. We cannot really judge any Christian group entirely by its members. Instead, we need to look at the doctrinal fruits. Is the church we attend teaching the eternal, apostolic truths revealed in the Bible or is it teaching its own traditions or the expediencies of culture?

There are also some admirable men who have served as Pope, but they're in the minority. It was not really until the papacy lost it feudal lands in the nineteenth century that the papacy emerged from total corruption to move closer to its spiritual roots.

Even though an increasing percentage of the Christian world reject the papacy (including, in practice, many Catholics), the institution remains. Professor Madden's claims that the parade of world leaders to John Paul II's funeral and the media's obsession with the selection of his successor are proofs of the re-emerging influence of the papacy, but the historic base of Catholicism in Europe has crumbled, and I suspect the Pope is viewed in much the same light as the Dalai Lama - a curious vestige of a superstitious past when religion suffused ever aspect of life. The media loves celebrity and that is was the papacy became with John Paul II, who traveled more than all other popes before him. As a voice for peace, the papacy is respected. As a voice for Christ, albeit misguided, it is largely ignored. As a voice for conservative Christian values (Catholicism is to be praised for often holding the line against secular liberalism), it is often vilified.

Yes, the institution of the papacy has endured through centuries of cultural change, but it has done so too often by itself becoming a secular authority. More importantly, it is an institution, whereas the Bible calls for the church to be an organism. As an institution, it will probably continue to exist but because of its disconnection to biblical truth, it will continue to become more irrelevant.

In the meantime, it is unfortunate that Professor Madden's series exists in The Modern Scholar. His initial lecture might have an appropriate home in a catechism class, but it has no place in a presentation purporting to be a scholarly examination of the papacy. In a summary remark, he claims, "By the third century...certainly by the time we go into the 200s, the papacy was pretty universally recognized among the Catholic Christians...which is the vast majority, as the center or the hub or the capstone of the church." He adds, without further explanation, "Now precisely what that meant was up to debate." There was no such widespread debate because Madden's claim is without historic legitimacy. To begin with, "Catholic" Christians were not the vast majority unless one totally discounts the so-called heretics. At the dawn of the second century, Marcionite churches (see ET&N 92), which rejected Roman supremacy, rivaled "Catholic" churches in number and membership.

Madden displayed an enormous grasp of later history, but his apparent ignorance of the Bible and early church history laid a fatally flawed foundation for the series, mirroring the papacy he defended.

The papacy is not founded on the rock, but on the slippery sand of human tradition. The floods have eroded its presumptuous authority, but it has yet to be thoroughly swept away. When it is, we can only hope that the millions who love Christ yet offer allegiance to Rome will not be swept away with it.

For my part, I echo Edward Mote's great 1834 Hymn:

My hope is built on nothing less
Than Jesus’ blood and righteousness.
I dare not trust the sweetest frame,
But wholly trust in Jesus’ Name.

On Christ the solid Rock I stand,
All other ground is sinking sand;
All other ground is sinking sand.

Place your comments or questions on the ET&N Blog at blog.peculiarpress.com

Unsure about or don’t agree with something in Ekklesia Then & Now? First, be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11). If you still disagree, comment on the ET&N blog so we can all share in the discussion!

Unsure about or don’t agree with something in Ekklesia Then & Now? First, be a Berean (Acts 17:10-11). If you still disagree, post a message so we can all share in the discussion!

Subscribe | Recommend | Blog | Reply | Printable | Archive

NEXT ISSUE: Apocryphal Apocalypses (March 6)

© Richard M. Soule, 2007 Unlimited copy and distribution permission is hereby granted on the condition that this copyright notice is included and no profiteering is involved.
Website: www.peculiarpress.com
View back issues at www.ETandN.com
Unless otherwise indicated, all Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.