The Papacy

by T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Category: Departure From The Faith | Sept 1972

In a former article on "Church and State" we referred to certain modifications in church constitution and practice which took place in the early centuries A.D. and, in particular, to the departure from the apostolic pattern of church government. The care of the first churches of God was always in the hands of a plurality of elders, or, overseers. The writings of the early Fathers indicate that almost invariably government in each church had passed into the hands of a single bishop. In his fourth century commentary on Titus, Jerome wrote, "Among the ancients presbyters were the same as bishops; but by degrees, that the plants of dissension might be rooted up, all responsibility was transferred to one person". This single deflection from apostolic practice was to have disastrous consequences. It was the beginning of a path which led to the establishment of a sacerdotal caste in 'the Church' claiming sole authority to dispense salvation through its sacraments.

We also noted last month that when Church and State joined hands in the fourth century, 'the Church' became prosperous and soon many of the clergy were shamelessly competing for lucrative positions in the Imperial Court. In many places 'the Church' became a wealthy society and worldly-minded men were attracted to it, often bringing scandal on their office. Multitudes of 'nominal' Christians became church members. It has been remarked of the Saxons, evangelized by Augustine, "They were converted in battalions and baptized in platoons".

Because it was situated in the capital city of the Empire, the Roman Church, already influential, gained in prestige and influence during the reign of Constantine, and gradually established an ascendancy over other Churches in the West. Its bishop, later designated 'Pope', grew more and more powerful. Following the death of Constantine, Imperial power declined and after the sack of Rome by Alaric in A.D. 410 the Empire was centralized at Constantinople. This led to an increasing Imperial control over the Eastern part of Christendom but greatly enhanced the power of the Roman Church. As Imperial power declined in Western Christendom ecclesiastical power increased, and the Church of Rome assumed its secular importance: the result was the secularity and corruption of the Middle Ages" (S. G. Green).

'Church' history of the post-apostolic period is depressing reading. The simplicity and purity of church order prescribed by the apostles were rapidly dissipated. The developments forecast by the apostle Paul in his address to the Ephesian elders at Miletus reached full circle:

grievous wolves shall enter in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them" (Acts 20:29,30).

Among the early 'Fathers' were men whose thinking was tainted by paganism: this is clearly discernible in their teaching. They brought the leaven of error into 'the Church'. To turn from their writings to the New Testament Scriptures is to breathe an entirely different atmosphere. In summing up the ecclesiastical developments of this period, Sir Robert Anderson makes this trenchant comment: "With the advent of Constantine the wolf of paganism openly assumed the sheep's clothing of 'the Christian religion' ... and ere another century had passed the standard of even outward morality in the professing Church had sunk to the level of that of the heathen world" (The Bible or the Church? p.48). There is ample evidence of the truth of this assertion.

The extension of papal power during the fourth century was not based on ecclesiastical consent or tradition, but on civil force. It is hardly necessary to say that it has no vestige of support in the New Testament. The eventual claim that the Roman Pontiff is supreme and infallible is not only a monstrous distortion of the Christian Faith but also a contradiction of history. One great witness against this usurpation of authority by Rome is the Eastern section of Christendom. From the beginning of 'Church' history right down to the present day the sovereignty of Papal Rome has been repudiated by the Eastern 'Church', and was the real reason for the division between the Eastern and Western 'Churches' in A.D. 1054. This is a fact of history which cannot be erased but is frequently lost sight of. English readers hear very little about the Eastern 'Church' because Papal Rome had been so dominant in the West. But as Dean Stanley writes:

"That figure which seemed so imposing when it was the only one which met our view, changes all its proportions when we see it is overtopped by a vaster, loftier, darker figure behind. If we are bent on having dogmatical belief and conservative tradition to its fullest extent, we must go, not to the Church which calls itself Catholic, but to the Church which calls itself Orthodox."

(This does not mean, of course, that the Eastern section of Christendom has scriptural support over the West. Stanley is merely pointing out that Rome's claim to primacy on historical grounds is baseless.)

In the Vatican Decrees (1869/70) three sayings of our Lord are cited as justifying the theory that Peter was appointed prince of the apostles and vicar of Christ. The first and most important of these is found in the well-known passage Matt. 16:17-19, which contains the words, "upon this rock I will build My Church". The Roman interpretation of these words is that Peter is the "rock" on which the Church is built. The whole superstructure of Roman Catholicism is based on this interpretation: "So interpreted it is their charter text. Without this particular and doubtful interpretation of one saying of our Lord the vast fabric of Papalism would never have been constructed. Romanism is like one of those eccentric sects that owe their origin to a single text" (W. S. Kerr).

Our Lord did not say to Peter "on thee I will build My Church". It is highly significant that in this very context (verse 23) Peter, although a chosen apostle, is seen to be a stumbling man like ourselves. And there is not the slightest hint elsewhere in the New Testament that Peter is the "rock" on which the Church is founded.

It is one of the claims of Rome that Scripture must be interpreted only "according to the unanimous consent of the Holy Fathers". Submitted to this test the interpretation that Peter is the "rock" in the passage under consideration breaks down completely. The variety of interpretation among the Fathers on this text is destructive of the Roman claims for the Papacy. The fact is that none of the early Fathers, whatever their understanding of Matt. 16:17-19, deduced from it that our Lord appointed Peter as His vice-regent, giving him lordship over His Church. The teaching of the Fathers on this passage is examined carefully by W. S. Kerr in A Handbook on the Papacy (Marshall, Morgan and Scott, 1950). Readers will find a fund of information on the subject in this valuable treatise.

The second passage of Scripture quoted in the Vatican Decrees to support the primacy of Peter among the apostles is Luke 22:32, "... when thou are converted, strengthen thy brethren" (AV). To see in these words a guarantee that Peter would be preserved from all error is a striking instance of the weakness of Rome's case. Yet this passage is used not only to support the claim for the infallibility of Peter but also for the Popes of Rome I Was Peter infallible when Paul "resisted him to the face" (Gal. 2:11)? It was Paul, not Peter, who upheld the truth of the gospel on that occasion.

John 21:15-17 is the third passage relied on to support the Papacy. The Vatican Decrees assert: "It was upon Simon alone that Jesus after His resurrection bestowed the jurisdiction of chief Pastor and Ruler over all His fold in the words: 'Feed My lambs: feed My sheep'". Far from assuming a place of primacy over his brethren, Peter regarded himself as a fellow-elder among them, sharing in the pastoral care of the flock of God. In his first epistle he wrote: "The elders therefore among you I exhort, who also am a fellow-elder ... tend the flock of God which is among you ' (1 Pet. 5:1,2). He strikingly reserves the title of chief Shepherd (verse 4) for his Lord and Master-"the great Shepherd of the sheep". This, in itself, refutes the claim made for the great apostle by the Vatican Council. Peter is unaware of it!

So much, then, for Rome's appeal to Scripture as the alleged basis for the dogma of the Papacy. Yet there are millions who accept the dogma as orthodox Christian doctrine, and rely on the Roman Church and her sacerdotal priesthood for salvation. Those who have experienced the glorious liberty of salvation through justifying grace long for the deliverance of such.

In order to sustain a historical basis for the Papacy the Roman Catholic claim that Peter was the first bishop of Rome must be proven. The claim falls down on two points. First, the diocesan bishops of Christendom belong to the post-apostolic age, as witness the testimony of the early Fathers (see the comment of Jerome in the first paragraph of this article). There is no trace of them in the teaching of the apostles. Second, there is no Biblical evidence that the apostle Peter ever visited Rome. He could not have been in Rome when Paul wrote the epistle to the Romans (A.D. 57 or 58), and there is no mention of him in the second epistle to Timothy, written by Paul shortly before his martyrdom at Rome. The traditional evidence of Peter's residence in Rome is inconclusive. The most that could be said of the traditional view is that Peter may have visited the Imperial city and have been martyred there. But certainty there is none. Sir Robert Anderson, skilled in sifting evidence, puts the matter tersely:

"What ground is there for believing that the apostle Peter was ever bishop of Rome? The only ground is that the Roman Church asserts it. Evidence there is absolutely none" (The Bible or the Church? p.33).

Thus, Scripture, history and so-called primitive tradition give no support to the Papal claims.

The writing of this short study on the Papacy has not been a pleasant task. May it provoke in readers a spirit of supplication on behalf of those who are enslaved in this spurious system. It is not, of course, contended here that there are no born again persons within the pale of Rome. Luther himself found salvation by grace through faith long before the Reformation, and his biography reveals that there were others who shared with him the joy of the forgiveness of their sins through the merits of the Atonement. All such, past and present, irrespective of their ecclesiastical connections, belong to the true Church-"the Church which is His (Christ's) Body" (Eph. 1:22,23). It is a re-assuring thought that "the Lord knoweth them that are His" (2 Tim. 2:19) and that He guards all those that the Father has given Him (John 17:9,10).

What we have written demands consideration in the light of the ecumenical movement sponsored by the World Council of Churches. The prophetic word foreshadows such a project culminating in the great religious-political confederacy of the end-time. The call to the faithful of those days has a present relevance:

"Come forth, My people, out of her, that ye have no fellowship with her sins" (Rev. 18:4).

T.M. Hyland, Birkenhead | Sept 1972
Departure From The Faith