Reflections on the Most Common Protestant Questions about the Petrine Ministry

One of the doctrines most firmly rejected by our Protestant brethren is precisely the doctrine of the primacy of Peter. I witnessed this firsthand when a friend of mine asked me insistently, over and over again:

“But where does Jesus call Peter ‘Pope of Rome’, ‘head of the Apostles’, ‘infallible’?”

If you have taken the time to dialogue with a Protestant brother, you have surely heard similar questions: “Where does the Bible say that God is a Trinity?” “Where does the Bible say the Sabbath was changed from Saturday to Sunday?” “Where does it say this? Where does it say that? Where? Where? And where?” It is precisely there that we Catholics are called to give an account of our faith.

To answer this question properly, one must first understand what the essence of the papacy is, because without grasping this, one will not be able to recognize where the papacy appears in Scripture.

But where does Jesus call Peter “Pope”, “head of the Apostles”, “infallible”?

The simple, straightforward answer is: NOWHERE….

Yes, nowhere — just as nowhere do we read the word Trinity, Incarnation, a list of the books forming part of the canon, or many other things that Protestants themselves typically accept, since in the Scriptures as testimony to Revelation there are both implicit and explicit truths, and concerning many of them, the understanding of God’s people has grown progressively over time.

Just as understanding grows, so too the terminology is enriched, achieving ever more precise expression of what the Church has believed and will always believe. Hence today we may call “Pope” the successor of the ministry exercised by the Apostle Peter, or refer to the God revealed in Three Divine Persons as the Trinity.

The problem with my Protestant friend was that he asked the wrong question. The doctrine of the papacy does not depend on its terminology, nor on the style in which it has been exercised throughout history.

The Doctrine of the Papacy Does Not Depend on Terminology

Today we could choose not to call Peter’s successor “Pope”, referring to him by any other title, and this would not change the essence of the papacy in the least. What truly matters is not the terminology but what the terminology is meant to explain.

The Doctrine of the Papacy Does Not Depend on the Style in Which It Has Been Exercised Throughout History

Many Protestants who do not “find” a Pope in the first centuries of Christianity fail to grasp the essence of the papacy. If their search is focused on finding someone bearing the title of “Pope”, adorned in splendid vestments, pompous in appearance, almost dictatorial in manner, demanding that all Christians follow his decrees without question — the image most Protestants have of the papacy — they will not find it. It is fitting here to quote the Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore:

“We are not going to say that the Protestant perspective has absolutely no validity. On the contrary, it is partly true that the Popes have acted in an autocratic and dictatorial style on many occasions in Christian history. However, the style of the papacy does not define the papacy itself, nor does it define its existence in the primitive Church.”[1]

Thus, we need have no difficulty acknowledging that such a style of papacy did not exist, or has varied and evolved as the Church has faced different challenges and historical situations; yet the papacy itself (properly defined) existed from the very moment Christ entrusted Peter with the task of feeding His sheep and lambs, and handed him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.

But what is the essence of the papacy, so that we may recognize it throughout Scripture and Tradition? Mark offers a concise and well-defined concept:

“The papacy is the ministry of supreme shepherd with jurisdictional power to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”

Was this ministry exercised by Peter, and then by the bishops of Rome from the earliest Christian centuries to the present day? To that question one must answer, without hesitation, in the affirmative.

The Essence and Exercise of the Papacy in Scripture

If there were important days in Peter’s life, one of them was surely the day Jesus gave him a new name. Today, perhaps, the changing of someone’s name carries little significance. Artists do it almost routinely before launching their careers so that their name fits better in the entertainment world; others simply because they are unhappy with the name their parents chose for them. “Why on earth did they have to name me Filomena?” “How could they think of calling me Pancracio?” some complain. In antiquity, however, names carried profound importance, and all the more so when it was God Himself who changed or assigned the name. Such a change was accompanied by a substantial change in the person’s life — a new function, a new identity.

If we briefly survey the Bible, we will find an abundance of transcendent name changes: Abram to Abraham[2] (because he would be “father of nations”), Sarai to Sarah[3] (“mother of kings”, “fruitful princess”), Jacob to Israel[4] (because “he strove with God and with men, and prevailed”), and even the name Jesus itself[5] (“God saves”, because He would save His people from their sins).

Just as it had come to them, so the day came for Simon. While Jesus was gathered with His disciples, He asked them: “Who do men say that I am?” — to which Simon, as always taking the lead over the rest of the disciples, hastened to answer: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!”

Simon’s words were well-founded, for “flesh and blood” had not revealed it to him, but rather “the Father who is in heaven.” He could not err; his confession was the fruit of divine Revelation. He had discovered the identity of Christ, the true Son of God. Jesus returns the gesture, responding by revealing what his new identity would be — the office for which He had chosen him — conferring it together with a new name:

“And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.”[6]

A momentous event had thus been accomplished in Simon’s life. Christ had given him a new name — “Rock” — and had told him that upon this Rock He would build His Church. And as with a new name comes a new ministry, so it was that Peter received his that very same day:

“I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”[7]

The resemblance of these words to the prophecy of Isaiah, where a new steward is placed over the kingdom of Judah, is striking:

“In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”[8]

It was no coincidence that Jesus chose those words; He was intentionally calling attention to the context of that prophecy, in which a new steward was being placed over the kingdom of Judah (Eliakim). The figure of the steward was widely known, for he was a servant to whom the king entrusted the keys.

The text of Isaiah shows us several of the steward’s functions: a minister in the king’s service with the highest authority, subordinate only to that of the king himself, and with a role of spiritual fatherhood — “he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.”

Eliakim was not truly a precedent in this office. Already in Abraham’s time there was a steward in his household (Eliezer of Damascus[9]), which shows that this was already a recognized figure in that era. Later, Joseph (son of Jacob), after being sold as a slave and taken to Egypt, became steward in the house of Potiphar:

“So Joseph found favor in his sight and attended him, and he made him overseer of his house and put him in charge of all that he had.”[10]

He later became steward over the house of Pharaoh:

“You shall be over my house, and all my people shall order themselves as you command; only as regards the throne will I be greater than you.” And Pharaoh said to Joseph, “Behold, I have set you over all the land of Egypt.”[11]

And so we find numerous references to stewards in the reigns of Judah and Israel throughout the centuries in 1 Kgs 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kgs 10:5; 18:18, 37; 19:2; 2 Chr 28:7; Isa 22:15; 36:3, 22; 37:2. Significantly, in all these cases there were many ministers in each kingdom but only one steward[12], with full authority second only to that of the king, and with the power to make decisions that no other minister of the kingdom could revoke: “he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Jesus, as heir to the throne of David, likewise appointed a royal steward over His kingdom. It is in this transcendent event that Jesus calls Peter “Pope”, for it is there — in the conferring of the keys upon Peter as steward of the Kingdom of Heaven — that the essence of the Petrine ministry is contained.

Seen in this light, it makes sense why Peter appears as the Rock upon which the Church is built. Christ uses a metaphor in which the Church is compared to a spiritual building, in which Christians appear as parts of the construction. Like every building, not all the blocks are placed in the same position, nor do they have the same function; so too in the Church, Christians fulfill different roles and ministries. Peter, exercising a special ministry as steward of the kingdom and head of the Apostolic College, would appear as the rock upon which the Church is built, just as the Apostles together with Peter himself figure in other metaphors as the foundation of the Church[13].

For not understanding this, a Protestant friend replied to me:

“You are quite entitled to believe that the Church is built upon a man — ‘Peter’ — and not upon ‘Christ’.”

The error lies in failing to understand in what sense Peter is the rock of Matthew 16:18. Peter is the rock upon which the Church is built insofar as he represents the visible authority instituted by Jesus Christ to govern the Church, while the profession of faith constitutes the doctrinal foundation of the same. When Protestants fail to distinguish between these two things, they end up distorting and caricaturing the Catholic position, imagining that we have placed our faith in “a mere man.”

The Exercise of the Papacy in History

At the outset of these reflections I stated that, while the essence of the papacy has always been the same, its style has changed throughout history as the Church faced different obstacles and challenges.

While the Apostles were still alive and being guided directly by the Holy Spirit, the exercise of the Petrine office consisted principally in leadership. It is there that we see Peter as representative of the other Apostles receiving from Christ the commission to tend His flock: the People of God.

“When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ A second time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ He said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ He said to him the third time, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’ Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ and he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep.’”[14]

This text is remarkable, because while the tending of the flock is a task not only of Peter but of all pastors, here Christ addresses him exclusively. Note that he is entrusted not only with pastoring the “sheep” but also the “lambs”, which symbolize the other Apostles. Note additionally that, in referring to the other Apostles, Jesus asks him: “Do you love me more than these?”

When Satan asks to sift the Apostles “like wheat”[15], Jesus prays especially for Peter, that his faith may “not fail”[16]. Perhaps most significantly of all, it is to him that Christ entrusts the task of strengthening his brethren (the Apostles) in the faith[17].

As steward of the kingdom, it is he and no other who receives the revelation that the Gentiles could enter the Church[18]; he is the first to preach at Pentecost[19]; he takes the initiative regarding the need to complete the group of the Twelve[20]; he performs the first miraculous healing after the Resurrection[21]; and so on.

In sum, we can say that Peter’s marked leadership throughout the New Testament was nothing other than the exercise of his office — though the style in which he exercised it was through the leadership of the Apostolic College.

Once he was succeeded in his office by the bishops of Rome, we see that during the first five centuries no bishop usurped the primacy for himself; rather, it was attributed, according to ancient custom, to the bishop of Rome. The frequent objections made by some Protestants (since most deny this primacy outright) — that it was merely a primacy of honor and not of jurisdiction — cannot be sustained in the face of the vast body of historical evidence. The Popes from the days of the Apostles onward not only continued to exercise supreme jurisdiction in the West, but even in the East until the great schism in the eleventh century.

Already in the first centuries this office had to be exercised in different ways — not only through leadership but also through the disciplining of rebellious communities (as when Clement of Rome disciplined the community of Corinth for having deposed its pastors), or by serving as a final and supreme court of appeals.

One example of this exercise of jurisdictional primacy is found precisely in these appeals, for no one appeals from a higher tribunal to a lower one. In the history of the Church we encounter appeals from every quarter — bishops, patriarchs, and even heretics — to the Church of Rome. Many examples could be cited, but a few will suffice:

1) Already during the pontificate of Pope Anicetus (c. 155) a controversy arose over the differences between the Church of Rome — which nearly all the others followed — and the Asian churches regarding the date of the celebration of Easter. St. Polycarp traveled to Rome at more than eighty years of age to argue that the date on which they celebrated Easter was a tradition they had received from St. John himself. Although they did not reach an agreement, Pope Anicetus and St. Polycarp maintained peace and communion.

Later, under the pontificate of Pope St. Victor (189–199), the problem resurfaced and became more acute — now with Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus at the head of the Asian churches — and Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate them; whereupon St. Irenaeus intervened. After acknowledging his own adherence to the Roman observance, he asked the Pope not to excommunicate them in view of their attachment to their ancient traditions, since the matter was not a doctrinal question. The Pope agreed not to excommunicate them, and they eventually came to accept Roman discipline.

2) Dionysius, bishop of Rome, around the middle of the third century, having learned that the Patriarch of Alexandria had erred on some points of the faith, demanded an explanation, and the Patriarch, in obedience to his superior, promptly vindicated his own orthodoxy.

3) St. Athanasius, Patriarch of Alexandria, appealed in the fourth century to Pope Julius I from the decision rendered against him by the Eastern bishops. The Pope reversed the sentence of the Eastern council and restored Athanasius to his see.

4) St. Basil, Archbishop of Caesarea, also in the fourth century, sought the protection of Pope Damasus.

5) St. John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople, appealed at the beginning of the fifth century to Pope Innocent I for redress of grievances inflicted upon him by various Eastern prelates and by the Empress Eudoxia of Constantinople.

6) St. Cyril appealed to Pope Celestine against Nestorius; Nestorius likewise appealed, but without success, to the Pope.

7) The Councils of Milevis and Carthage, held by the African bishops and St. Augustine, requested the Pope’s approval for their decrees. When the Pope replied, St. Augustine rejoiced and declared the matter settled. In numerous letters he maintains that nothing is clearer than the judgment of the Apostolic See.

8) When Eutyches began to preach the doctrine known as Monophysitism, he was condemned for heresy by Flavian (bishop of Constantinople) at a synod. He then appealed to Pope Leo[22], whereupon Peter Chrysologus (bishop of Ravenna) wrote to Eutyches urging him to render obedience to the Pope: “We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently attend to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the City of Rome, from the blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from the consent of the bishop of Rome”[23].

9) To judge the case of Eutyches, an attempt was made in 449 to hold an ecumenical council at Ephesus (convened by Emperor Theodosius II with the authorization of Pope Leo I). The council was presided over by Dioscorus (Patriarch of Alexandria), who supported Eutyches. Eutyches succeeded in preventing the papal legate from reading the letter brought by the papal legates, and following this and other irregularities the papal legate (Hilary) annulled the sentence in the name of the Pope and withdrew from the council.

Subsequently, at the Council of Chalcedon, Dioscorus was charged with having “held a Council (ecumenical) without the Apostolic See, which was never permitted” — referring to his having continued the council after the departure of the papal legates.

Pope Leo also received the appeals of Theodoret and Flavian and had written to the emperor and empress that all the acts of the council were null; he excommunicated all who had taken part in it and absolved those who had been condemned (except Domnus of Antioch), and thus it was that an ecumenical council was annulled by the Pope and came to be known as the “Robber Council.”

10) At the Council of Chalcedon, where through the approval of Canon 28 an attempt was made to give Constantinople the second place after Rome, papal approval for that canon was sought, and the patriarch himself wrote to the Pope acknowledging that the approval of the acts depended upon his ratification. Likewise the full council acknowledged him as successor of Peter and head of the Catholic Church.

It is fitting to pause here, since an entire chapter will be devoted further on to a more detailed examination of the historical evidence for the papacy. But it suffices to note that if all these continuous appeals do not in themselves imply an acknowledgment of jurisdiction, one wonders what they could possibly mean.

Protestant Objections

Objection no. 1: In Matthew 16:18, Christ was referring to Himself or to the profession of faith as the rock upon which He would build His Church — not to Peter.

While we may certainly say that the Church is built upon faith in Christ, we cannot deny that in that same passage Christ was also referring to Peter as the Rock upon which the Church is built. It must be kept in mind that at that moment Christ is changing Simon’s name, precisely in order to form a play on words: “You are Peter (Rock) and upon this Rock I will build my Church.” It would make no sense to change Simon’s name to Peter-Rock, and then to refer to “another” rock distinct from Peter.

The Greek phrase reads “ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ” (epi tautê tê petra). Here “epi” means “upon”, and “tautê tê petra” means “upon this very rock.” The phrase without “tê” would mean simply “upon this rock”, but with the addition of “tê”, the grammatical construction points decisively to the identification of the rock referred to (upon which the Church is built) with the one just mentioned (Peter). Thus it is Peter, and no other rock, to whom Christ refers as the foundation upon which the Church is built.

An explanation to this effect is given by Robert A. Sungenis:

“It is important to note that here Jesus chooses the phrase epi tautee tee petra (‘upon this rock’) rather than the more ambiguous wording such as epi tee petra (‘upon the rock’) or epi petra (‘upon a rock’). Using the definite or indefinite article could appear to point to someone other than Peter, whereas the demonstrative adjective tautee (‘this’) is more likely to identify someone in the immediate grammatical vicinity of the noun ‘rock.’ The only other rock illustrated in the immediate vicinity is Petros (‘Peter’), which is a proper name meaning ‘Rock’…”[24]

Taking this into account, it makes little sense for anyone to claim that Christ meant to say: “You are Peter, and upon that rock over there I will build my Church.”

Objection no. 2: The word used as Peter’s name in the Greek text of the Bible (Petros) is different from the word used for the rock upon which the Church is built (Petra); therefore Christ was not referring to Peter as the Rock.

Protestants typically argue that the word used in the Greek text as Peter’s name is “Petros” and refers to a “small stone”, while “Petra”, the word for the rock upon which the Church is built, refers to a large rock or boulder. Under this interpretation they would be two different rocks, and the passage should be understood as: “You are a little pebble, and upon this great rock of faith I will build my Church.”

In the first place, it must be objected that in Koine Greek (the language in which the writings of the New Testament are found), both words (Petros and Petra) were synonymous at that period. To refer to a loose stone — an individual block, as opposed to the rock — Greek has another word, “lithos”, which is frequently used in this sense in Scripture. One example is found in Mark 15:46:

“who, having bought a linen shroud, took him down from the cross, wrapped him in the linen shroud, and laid him in a tomb which had been hewn out of the rock (petra); and he rolled a stone (lithos) against the door of the tomb.”

In the Greek text the word “petra” is used for “rock”, but for “stone” the word “lithos” is used, not “Petros”.

Another example is found in 1 Pet 2:8:

“To you therefore who believe, he is precious; but for those who do not believe, ‘The very stone (lithos) which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner,’ and ‘A stone (lithos) that will make men stumble, a rock (petra) that will make them fall’; for they stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do.”

Here again “lithos” is used for a loose stone (one that is stumbled over) and “petra” for a rock or rocky mass. Further examples:

“and said to him, ‘If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down; for it is written, ‘He will give his angels charge of you,’ and ‘On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone (lithon).’’”[25]

“Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone (lithon)?”[26]

“Jesus said to them, ‘Have you never read in the scriptures: ‘The very stone (lithon) which the builders rejected has become the head of the corner; this was the Lord’s doing, and it is marvelous in our eyes’?’”[27]

Thus, when Scripture refers to a loose stone, it normally uses the word “lithos”, while when referring to a rock it uses “petra” — but most importantly, Petros is NEVER used in all of Scripture to refer to a mere stone, but only as Peter’s proper name. Had the Greek text wished to distinguish between Peter and the rock upon which the Church is built, it could easily have used “lithos” for Peter — but it does not.

Why Petros (masculine) Rather Than Petra (feminine)?

If the Greek text uses “Petros” rather than “Petra” for Peter, it is because unlike Aramaic, Greek does have grammatical genders, and it was impossible to assign a feminine proper name to a man (it would be like calling a man “Petrina” or “Petronila” in Spanish). This fact has been acknowledged even by Protestant scholars, among whom we may mention D.A. Carson, R.T. France, Oscar Cullmann, Herman Ridderbos, Craig Blomberg, William F. Albright, C.S. Mann, Craig S. Keener, Francis Wright Beare, Eduard Schweizer, Ivor H. Jones, M. Eugene Boring, Thomas G. Long, Richard B. Gardner, and others.[28]

But perhaps what makes this objection most implausible is that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Christ spoke these words not in Greek but in Aramaic — the language used by Jesus and His disciples. Evidence of this is found in John 1:42, where St. John tells us that the name given to Peter was Cephas:

“Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas’ (which means Peter).”[29]

Cephas (in Greek Κηφᾶς = Kēphas) is a transliteration of the Aramaic word (כֵּיפָא = Kēphas) meaning “Rock.” Peter is addressed by this name repeatedly throughout Paul’s epistles, which would make no sense if it had not truly been the name given to him by Jesus.

“What I mean is that each one of you says, ‘I belong to Paul,’ or ‘I belong to Apol′los,’ or ‘I belong to Cephas,’ or ‘I belong to Christ.’”[30]

“…whether Paul or Apol′los or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours.”[31]

“Do we not have the right to be accompanied by a wife, as the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?”[32]

“…he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.”[33]

“…I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days.”[34]

“…James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars…”[35] “But when Cephas came to Antioch I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.”[36]

“But when I saw that they were not straightforward about the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, ‘If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?’”[37]

Thus, if Jesus called Peter “Kēphas”, He must have said: “You are Kēphas, and upon this Kēphas I will build my Church”, in which case Peter appears without any doubt as the very same rock upon which the Church is built.

It should be noted that “Kēphas” means “Rock” in Aramaic, and in that language there exists another word for an ordinary stone: “evna.” Had Christ wished to give Peter the name of a mere stone rather than a rock, He would have called him “Evna”, not “Kēphas”.

Furthermore, not only is there sufficient evidence to conclude that Christ pronounced Matthew 16:18 in Aramaic, but that an ancient and widespread patristic tradition holds that the Gospel of Matthew itself was composed in that language and subsequently translated — unfortunately, the Aramaic originals have been lost.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence is found in the ancient and widespread testimony of the primitive Church regarding the origin of this Gospel. The oldest testimony we have is from St. Papias, a direct disciple of the Apostle St. John (according to St. Irenaeus of Lyon). His testimony is preserved by Eusebius in the Ecclesiastical History:

“This is what Papias says about Mark. About Matthew, he had this to say: Matthew compiled the sayings [logia of Christ] in the Hebrew language, and each one translated them as best he could.”[38]

Paul L. Maier (a Protestant historian) clarifies regarding the foregoing that when referring to the Hebrew language, what is probably meant is Aramaic, as in the New Testament.

Another testimony, nearly as ancient, comes from St. Irenaeus of Lyon (disciple of St. Polycarp, who was himself a disciple of John and a companion of Papias):

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him.”[39]

Origen also bears witness to this, as Eusebius records:

“I have learned by tradition that the four Gospels alone are unquestionable in the Church of God under heaven. First written was that of Matthew, who was once a tax collector but afterwards an Apostle of Jesus Christ, and it was prepared for the converts from Judaism and published in the Hebrew language.”[40]

“Matthew had begun by preaching to the Hebrews, and when he was about to go to other peoples too, he committed his Gospel to writing in his native tongue, the written word compensating for the loss of his presence.”[41]

St. Athanasius in his Synopsis of Holy Scripture affirms the same:

“The Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew in Hebrew dialect, published in Jerusalem, and James, the brother of the Lord, made a translation.”[42]

St. John Chrysostom in his Homily on Matthew writes:

“Of Matthew again it is said, that when those among the Jews who had believed came to him, and prayed him to leave them in writing those same things which he had spoken to them by word, he also composed the Gospel, in the Hebrew tongue.”[43]

Epiphanius of Salamis in his Panarion writes:

“They have the complete Gospel of Matthew in Hebrew. For there is no doubt that they still preserve it in the Hebrew script, as it was originally written.”[44]

But as if this were not enough, St. Jerome testifies that he himself personally saw the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew, from which he had transcribed his own copy[45].

St. Augustine repeats the same:

“Of the four [Evangelists], it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language, the others in Greek.”[46]

These are only some of many testimonies; we could add St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Gregory Nazianzen, and all the ecclesiastical writers of the Middle Ages, who repeated that Matthew wrote in the Hebrew tongue (Aramaic).

The Catholic Encyclopedia notes that all the ecclesiastical writers agreed that Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew (Aramaic), and affirmed that the Greek text was a translation from the Aramaic (until Erasmus, who questioned this). It continues to be defended by modern scholars, and not only Catholic ones; and even those who hold that the Greek Matthew is not a mere translation acknowledge the Aramaic substratum of this passage. Oscar Cullmann, the noted Swiss Protestant theologian, explains:

“The great antiquity and the Palestinian origin of the section (Matthew 16:17 ff.) may today be considered beyond all doubt. This is shown by the strong Semitic linguistic characteristics of this section… The parallelism of the two declarations — ‘You are the rock, and on this rock I will build…’ — shows that the second rock refers to none other than the first. This is more clearly expressed in Aramaic, where the same word kepha appears in both places, unlike Greek… Thus here the name and the thing are exactly identical. Therefore, we must assume that the saying was originally coined in Aramaic.”[47]

In conclusion, it is not sound to interpret Peter — whom Christ called “Cephas” (Rock or great Stone) and whose name He retained over time (as attested throughout the New Testament) — as appearing in Matthew 16:18 as a “small pebble.” The attempts to impose a forced and different interpretation on this passage, so as to avoid acknowledging that Jesus truly did call Peter the rock upon which the Church is built, are motivated more by prejudice and a refusal to accept its implications than by an objective and contextual analysis of the passage. It is bad practice to practice eisegesis upon Scripture in order to adapt it to one’s own ideology.

As can be seen, there exist valid and coherent reasons why we Catholics acknowledge that Christ instituted in the papacy a legitimate and permanent ministry. Of course, these reasons will not convince everyone, but the fact remains that they exist, even if they are not shared by all.

Notes

  1. Mark Bonocore: Debate with Jason Engwer, Opening words. ↩
  2. Gen 17:3-6 ↩
  3. Gen 17:16 ↩
  4. Gen 32:28 ↩
  5. Mt 1:21 ↩
  6. Mt 16:18 ↩
  7. Mt 16:19 ↩
  8. Is 22:20-23 ↩
  9. Gen 15:2 ↩
  10. Gen 39:4 ↩
  11. Gen 41:40-41 ↩
  12. In the same way that there are many Apostles but only one Pope. ↩
  13. Eph 2:20 ↩
  14. Jn 21:15-17 ↩
  15. Lk 22:31 ↩
  16. Lk 22:32 ↩
  17. Lk 22:32 ↩
  18. Acts 10:28 ↩
  19. Acts 2:14 ↩
  20. Acts 1:15-22 ↩
  21. Acts 3:6-7 ↩
  22. From Eutyches to Pope Leo, Ep. 21. ↩
  23. From Peter Chrysologus to Eutyches, Ep. 25. ↩
  24. Butler, Dahlgren, Hess, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, Queenship Publishing Company, USA 1996, pp. 23-24. ↩
  25. Mt 4:6 ↩
  26. Mt 7:9 ↩
  27. Mt 21:42 ↩
  28. The article can be consulted online at https://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.html ↩
  29. Jn 1:42 ↩
  30. 1 Cor 1:12 ↩
  31. 1 Cor 3:22 ↩
  32. 1 Cor 9:5 ↩
  33. 1 Cor 15:5 ↩
  34. Gal 1:18 ↩
  35. Gal 2:9 ↩
  36. Gal 2:11 ↩
  37. Gal 2:14 ↩
  38. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 129. ↩
  39. Irenaeus of Lyon, Against Heresies III,1,1 ↩
  40. Origen, cited by Eusebius in Historia Ecclesiastica. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 226. ↩
  41. Paul L. Maier, Eusebius: The Church History, Kregel, Grand Rapids, 1999, p. 113. ↩
  42. Cornelius a Lapide, The Great Commentary upon the Holy Scriptures, trans. Thomas W. Mossman (London: John Hodges, 1893), p. xxxvii. ↩
  43. Homilies of St. John Chrysostom on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers — Chrysostom, vol. 10 (n.p.: Christian Literature Pub. Co., 1888; rep. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 3. ↩
  44. Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis: Selected Passages (New York: Oxford, 1990), p. 93. ↩
  45. The Great Commentary upon the Holy Scriptures, trans. Thomas W. Mossman (London: John Hodges, 1893), p. xxxvii. ↩
  46. The Harmony of the Gospels 1:1:4, in Philip Schaff, ed., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers — Augustine, vol. 6 (n.p.: Christian Literature Pub. Co., 1888; rep. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), p. 78. ↩
  47. Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, trans. Floyd V. Filson (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1953), pp. 185, 206. ↩