[MORMONISM. The Faith of the Twenty-first Century. Section 7. Edward K. Watson. (Liahona Publications. Copyright © 2002 Edward K. Watson.) pp 41-52. MORMONISM: Section 7, Chapter 3. All rights reserved.]
CHAPTER 3
WAS PETER THE FIRST POPE AND FIRST BISHOP OF ROME?
The Roman Catholic claim of authority can be summed up in three statements:1
(1) Peter was appointed by Christ to be the supreme ruler over the entire Christian church under him.
(2) Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
(3) Peter passed on his monarchical authority to the succeeding bishops of Rome who inherited all of Peter's keys and authority.
The Roman Catholic Church relies upon three biblical texts to support the three ideas just mentioned. These three “Petrine Texts” are Matt 16:18; Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-17.
(1) Matt 16:18 is the most prominent and strongest scriptural argument the Catholic church can utilize to support their church and against the idea of an Apostasy. Let us examine it fully:
Matt 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Two things are used with this verse. The first is the Roman Catholics claim this is proof that Peter received a special endowment of power and authority that the other apostles didn't and second, the gates of hell will never prevail against the church, therefore, there was never an apostasy (which has been examined in the previous chapter).
Who or what is the Rock in Matt 16:18?
What is the rock? If we interpret the rock to mean revelation, Jesus, the testimony of Jesus, all of the apostles collectively (the apostolate) or Peter (as modern Roman Catholics do), the Mormon position can still be supported. To demonstrate:
1. Revelation is the rock - Since the church was built on continuous revelation and the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, the true church must be based on continuous revelation. Is that the case with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Definitely. The church was founded by revelation and the human head of the church is the living prophet who holds all the keys and authority that Peter had, and who is entitled to modern revelation from God. Thus, if revelation is the rock, the Mormons are vindicated.
2. Jesus is the rock - (16 Church Fathers taught this interpretation) Since Jesus appeared to Joseph Smith in 1820 and called him to found his church upon the earth, the authenticity of Joseph Smith is valid. All of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are appendages to the main doctrine that Jesus is the Christ the eternal God, and he is the only way we can return to Heavenly Father's presence.
3. The testimony (Peter's confession) of Jesus is the rock - (44 Church fathers taught this interpretation) Since Jesus is divine and is our God and Savior, the testimony of Jesus or testifying of his divinity insures us to receive blessings from him. Since Mormonism insists Jesus is our God and Savior and constantly testifies of that truth both in its Latter-day Scriptures and in the witness of its members, if the testimony of Jesus is the rock, the Mormons are vindicated.
4. Peter is the rock - (17 Church Fathers taught this interpretation) Since the church was built upon Peter, he became, in essence, the caretaker of the church. He possessed all the keys and authority of the church. In order for the church to continue, he would have to pass on all of his keys and authority to his successor. To whom did he pass them on to? Linus of Rome? Clement? Or was it to Joseph Smith in 1829? Who then is the authorized recipient of the authority and keys that Peter held? According to Mormonism, Peter, James and John came down from heaven in 1829 and passed on their authority and keys to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery, without which, the true church could never have been organized again. Again, we see that if Peter is the rock, the LDS claim also has validity.
5. All of the apostles are the rock - (8 Church Fathers taught this interpretation). Since all of the apostles are the Rock, the church is built upon them (Eph 2:20). Therefore, the true church must have a foundation of living twelve apostles and when the original twelve apostles were removed, the original church collapsed into apostasy. This interpretation again supports Mormonism.
Modern Catholic apologists will emphasize time and time again that Peter is the rock mentioned in Matt 16:18. They will use numerous arguments to prove this view. What they will not mention is even if they are right, it still does not prove they are the true church or the bishop of Rome inherited the keys of Peter.
An examination of the writings of the Church Fathers shows that the majority of them considered the Rock to be Peter's confession (44) and only seventeen of them thought the Rock had reference to Peter. Sixteen of them thought that it had reference to Christ himself and eight thought it had reference to all of the apostles. St Augustine initially thought it had reference to Peter but after careful consideration, changed his mind and said it represents Peter's confession.2 St. John Chrysostom was also very clear that the rock wasn't Peter but his confession.
If the Church Fathers believed Peter possessed a monarchical authority over the entire church and Matt 16:18 proved it, why is it that only seventeen of them (out of over 60) said the rock was Peter but forty-four said it was his testimony of Jesus? What is even more astounding is their diversity of what the rock represented. This shows they didn't view this verse with the same understanding modern Roman Catholics do.
There is great discord among the Church Fathers as to the correct meaning of the Rock in Matt 16:18. This shows the first century church didn't view Peter as possessing a monarchical supremacy over the church.
(2) Luke 22:31-32 And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.
Peter was supposed to strengthen his “brethren” in the church. This doesn't mean he was to occupy a position of supremacy over all of the church especially in light of the other biblical passages that mention the other apostles and disciples were also to strengthen the members of the church (see next).
(3) John 21:15-17 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. He saith to him again the second time, Simon son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord: thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee, Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
The command to feed the sheep or flock of Christ doesn't grant the feeder any supremacy of authority over the sheep or else Acts 20:28 and 1 Pet 5:2 would cause a great number of individuals to possess a “monarchical authority over the entire church.” One can't be at the very top of a pyramid, which only has room for one, and at the same time, share that position with numerous others.
The Church Fathers didn't believe this passage was a special grant of authority to Peter. They believed this triple question and answer was Peter's atonement for his triple denial of Christ.3
Peter: Supremacy and Succession
For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Peter really did inherit all the keys and authority of the Christian church and wasn't just the head of the quorum of the twelve.4 Let us suppose that none of the other apostles possessed the stewardship over the church aside from Peter. This still does not take away the fact that the entire idea behind Apostolic Succession, or of Peter transferring his authority to the bishop of Rome is not based on proof but is only an assumption.
The Roman Catholic Church assumes Peter passed on his authority to Linus. There is no evidence that Peter actually did. Just because Peter went to Rome and died there doesn't mean he was the bishop of Rome,5 and that the bishop of Rome was his successor over the entire church. There's no proof Peter was Rome's first bishop,6 since there isn't a single document that mentions Peter was the first bishop of Rome for more than two hundred years of the church's existence).7 Even if Peter was Rome's first bishop, Catholic apologists have a further problem because there's no proof he passed on his authority over the entire church to anyone.8 There is no mention in the Bible that he did so despite all the gospels and some other books of the New Testament were written years and even decades after Peter's death and it would be odd for them to overlook one of the most important events that would have insured the perpetual unity of the church.
There isn't a single Church Father in the first two hundred years of the church who said Peter possessed a monarchical authority over the entire church and associated the bishop of Rome with Peter.9
“If Christ appointed St. Peter his vice-regent, it is inexplicable that it took the church several centuries to find it out.”10
If anything, Eusebius claims Peter, James and John never contended among themselves as to who was the greatest among them, instead, they selected James, the brother of Jesus to be the head of the church, and was based in Jerusalem.11
Do the earliest lists of Roman bishops have Peter as the first bishop of Rome?
The earliest record of a list of an “apostolic succession” are from Hegisippus,12 and Irenaeus,13 in the last quarter of the second century, over a hundred years after Peter was supposed to have passed on his authority,14 but they fail to mention Peter being the first bishop of Rome. Instead, they have Linus as Rome's first bishop.15
Eusebius clearly taught that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and not Peter,
“After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first bishop at Rome.”16 “After Anencletus had been bishop of Rome for 12 years, he was succeeded by Clement.”17 “Clement also, who was appointed the third bishop of this church (Rome). . .”18
Eusebius also said,
“After Evaristus had completed the eighth year as bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the episcopal office by Alexander, the fifth in succession from Peter and Paul.”19
As can be seen, Eusebius did not consider Peter to be the first bishop of Rome. He considered Peter and Paul to be the founders of the church in Rome and even had Paul before Peter showing he didn't consider one to be superior to the other. His version of the Episcopal Succession of the bishopric of Rome is identical with Irenaeus, that is, Linus was the first bishop of Rome, Anencletus was the second and Clement was the third.
Peter and Paul, or Paul and Peter were always mentioned together during the first two centuries of Christianity,20 with no evidence that the earliest Christians viewed one as being superior to the other. The order of their names are frequently interchanged,21 which shows their equality to the early Christians.
St. Epiphanius (315-403) is the only one,22 (over 300 years after the “fact”) who taught that Paul and Peter were equal and were equally bishops of Rome probably due to them organizing that church. He said,
“Peter and Paul, the first of all the apostles, were equally bishops of Rome.”23
There is an additional problem because there are three versions of this “line of succession.” One is normally interpreted that Clement was the first bishop of Rome,24 another has Linus and then Clement,25 and another has Anacletus between Linus and Clement.26 The Apostolic Constitution (380 A.D.) follows Tertullian as having Paul appointing Linus as the first bishop of Rome instead of Peter who ordained Clement to the priesthood who later on became the bishop of Rome.27
The mid-fourth century Liberian Catalogue has Peter as the first bishop of Rome (for twenty-five years!), followed by Linus, Clement, Cletus and Anaclitus. The Chronographer based his work upon two versions and confused the two spellings of Cletus/Anaclitus for two people when it was only one.
The evidence appears conclusive that Peter was never the first bishop of Rome especially since no documents in the first two centuries said he was. In fact, the very first statement we have that Peter (with Paul) formed the church of Rome was with Dionysius of Corinth in 170, over a hundred years after the “event” took place.28 The very first time we find a document stating that Peter was the first bishop of Rome was the mid-fourth century Liberian Catalogue.29
The first instance of referring to Peter as “the first of the apostles” was done by Peter of Alexandria at the beginning of the fourth century.30 The Clementine Recognitions, and Pseudo-Clement's letter to James, which dates from the third century has Clement being ordained by Peter to lead the church but also has Clement writing a letter to James of Jerusalem, whom he addresses as the “bishop of bishops.” These documents were condemned by the Catholic Church as heretical and can't be used by modern Catholic apologists for support.
“None of the most ancient Fathers, no matter how they interpret the words of Christ, have discovered in his teaching anything to justify a belief in the doctrine of the supremacy of St. Peter- a doctrine which has merely developed in the course of time. To sum up, we say that if St. Peter may be described as a rock and a foundation, so also we may call all the apostles rocks and foundations.”31
The Gospel of Mark was written as a sort of biography of Peter,32 in Rome. One would then think that Mark should be the best source of Peter's supremacy. Oddly enough, none of the “Petrine Texts” are found in Mark and Mark doesn't lay any emphasis on his versions of the same incidents.
I personally believe that Peter did not possess a superior authority over the other apostles but was the head of the 12 apostles just as the present head of the Quorum of the Twelve in the LDS Church does not possess a superior authority over his fellow apostles but simply occupies the primacy of rank.33
It is not necessary to go in depth concerning Peter's status due to the fact that even if Peter did possess a superior authority (as some would insist by comparing him to the ancient chief vizier - Isa 22:20-25; Gen 41:40; 1 Kings 18:3), it still wouldn't make any difference against the Mormons due to he was one of the three ancient apostles who passed on their authority to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery in 1829.34 Either way, Mormonism is still validated.
[ENDNOTES]:
1.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). XXIII.
2.St. Augustine. Retractions. 1:21.
3.Ambrose, Apol. David. 100. 9.50; Cyril, Exposition on the Gospel of John, Book 12, Chap. 1; Gregory Nazianzen, Orations, 39:18; John Chrysostom, De Poenitentia. Hom 5:2; Homily upon John, 88:1.
4.If we examine the writings of the Church Fathers to see what they thought of the texts modern Roman Catholics use to prove Peter's monarchical authority over the church (Matt 16:18; Luke 22:31-32 & John 21:15-17), we will discover that very few of them ascribe to Peter such an authority. An honest examination of the writings of the Church Fathers shows that the great majority of them never considered Peter to be the rock in Matt 16:18. Only 17 of the over 60 Church Fathers believed that Peter was the rock. 44 of them believed that the rock was the confession of Peter in the divinity of Christ. Neither did they believe Peter occupied a superior position and authority over the rest of the apostles. Neither do any of them mention that the Bishop of Rome inherited all of Peter's keys and authority over the entire church.
Here are some Fathers who teach that Jesus or the testimony of Jesus is the rock, not Peter himself and some who taught that the rock applies to all the other apostles as well or Peter represented the others:
St. Hilary of Poitiers, On The Trinity, 6th Book, Chapter 36 & 37; Book 2, Chapter 23; In Matthew 16:18; St. Gregory of Nyssa, Advent of our Lord; St. Cyprian of Carthage. On the Unity of the Church. 4; St. Ambrose of Milan, Exposition on the Gospel of Luke. Book 6: 8,9,97; Epistles 43,9; on Ephesians 2; Exposition upon the Psalms, 2:12; 38:37; St. Jerome, Commentary in Amos 6:12; Commentary on Matthew 7:24-25; 16:18; Against Jovinian 1:14,19; Pope St. Leo the Great, Sermon 2;3:3 upon his elevation to the episcopate, upon the transfiguration of our Lord, upon the nativity of the apostles Peter and Paul, Sermon 2; St. John Chrysostom, Homilies 55 & 83 upon St. Matthew, and Galesians 1; St. Augustine, Tract 7,47,50,118,123,124:5 upon St. John, Retractions, book 1, Sermons, 13,149:7, 245:2, 246:5; Sermon 205 upon the Nativity of the Apostles Peter and Paul; De Agone Cristiano, 30; St.Isidore Hispalensis, On Church Duties Book 2, Chap. 5; St. Basil the Great of Cesarea, Commentary on Isaiah, 2:66,85; Monastic Constitutions, Chap 22; Isidore of Pelusium, Epistles, 235,416; Basil of Seleusia, Orations, 25; Theodoret, Epistles, 77; Theophylact, Commentary on Matthew 16:18; Tertullian, Against Marcion Book 4, Chap.13; On Modesty, 21; Acacius, Homily pronounced at the Council of Ephesus; St. Cyril of Alexandria, Exposition of Isaiah, Book 4, Chap. 42:23; 44; Dialogues on the Trinity, 4; Epiphanius, Against Eighty Heresies, 59:8; Pope St. Gregory the Great, 3rd book, 33rd epistle; St. John Damascene, upon the Transfiguration; Origen, Commentary upon the Gospel of Matthew, 12:10-11,14,16 ; St. Pacian, 3rd letter to Sempronius. (See THE PAPACY, footnote pp.38-40; THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS Second Series [Schaff & Wace]. 9:111-112,58).
5.THE STORY OF THE CHURCH (Renwick & Harman). p.15.
6.THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY. A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (Brown). p.122. Peter was definitely not the founder of the church in Rome since he was still in Jerusalem for the council of the Apostles (46/48 A.D.) which was after the time Emperor Claudius expelled all the Jews from Rome because of their disputations with the numerous Christians in the city:
“(Claudius) expelled the Jews in Rome because they, incited by Chrestus, were constantly creating an uproar.” (Suetonius, Life of Claudius, ch.25.4; cf. Acts 18:2).
Peter arrived in Rome after Paul and Paul's letter to the church in Rome shows that there already was a well-established Christian community in Rome before his arrival (Rom 1:8). See also THE POPES (Walsh). p.17.
7.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). pp.95,95 f.8,123; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.66.
8.THE ORIGINS OF CHRISTIANITY (Brown). p.140.
9.THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.43-44,89-90,109,257.
10.WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.11.
11.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chap. 1.
12.Epiphanius. Heresies 27.6.
13.Irenaeus. Against Heresies. Book. 3, Chap 3, 3. (ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. Vol I. (Roberts & Donaldson. Editors). pp.416; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.64.
14.THE POPES (Walsh). p.20.
15.Irenaeus. Against Heresies, Book 3, Chapter 3,3.
16.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 3, Chapter 2; Book 5, Chapter 6.
17.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 3, Chapter 15.
18.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 3, Chapter 4; Book 5, chapter 6.
19.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 4, Chapter 1; Book 5, Chapter 6.
20.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). p.93,f.6; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). p.119.
21.THE BEGINNINGS OF WESTERN CHRISTENDOM (Elliott-Binns). pp. 93-95; THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PAPACY (Burn-Murdoch). pp.67-68.
22.WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.151.
23.St. Epiphanius, Heres. 27.
24.Tertullian (160-225 A.D.) De Prescription. Chapter 32. Tertullian challenged the heretics to show a line of succession for their leaders and for them to furnish proof that their leaders were legitimately ordained,
“. . .as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.”(Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol 3, p.258.)
We can assume that according to Tertullian, Clement was ordained to the priesthood by Peter while Paul ordained Linus and Anencletus. Because of this, Peter could not possibly be the first bishop of Rome.
25.St. Augustine. Epistle 53.
26.THE ANTE-NICENE FATHERS. Vol I. (Roberts & Donaldson. Editors. 1885). p.2.
27.VICARS OF CHRIST (De Rosa). p.15.
28.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chap. 25.
29.WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.183; THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). pp.61,99,104-105,107,710.
30.THE SEE OF PETER (Shotwell & Loomis). p.94, f.83.
31.WHO WAS THE FIRST BISHOP OF ROME? (Shortt). p.20.
32.Eusebius. Eccl. Hist. Book 2, Chap. 15; Book 6, Chap. 14.
33.I believe that by examining all the biblical passages that mention Peter and his authority and the authority of his fellow-apostles (Matt 10:2; 16:18; 18:15-20; 19:27-30; 20:20-27; 21:42; 23:10; 28:16-20; Mark 8:27-33; 9:32-35; 10:35-44[would James and John make such a request in they believed Peter possessed superior authority over them?]; Luke 9:18-21,46; 22:24-34; John 1:44; 10:11; 15:5; 20:21-23; 21:15-17; Acts 8:14(John 13:16); 11:1-5; 12:17; 15; Rom 11:13; 15:15-25[Paul would never say this if Peter founded the church in Rome]; 1 Cor 1:10-13; 2:16; 3:4-5,11,21-23; 7:17; 10:4; 15:9; 2 Cor 2:9-10; 11:5,28; 12:11; Gal 1:16-19; 2:6-14; Eph 2:20-22; 4:11-14; 1 Peter 1:1; 2:7-8; 5:1-2; 1 & 2 Peter[- Why doesn't Peter even hint that he is the monarchical head of the entire church?]; Rev 21:14) and the writings of the Church Fathers such as St. Augustine, Sermons 149 & 316; Basil the Great, Monastic Constitutions 22:5; Ambrose, In Psalms 38; Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity, Book 6, Chap. 33; Gaudentius of Brescia, Sermons, 16; Origen, Upon St. John; Cyprian, Upon the Unity of the Church, 4; 71st Letter to Quint; etc.,) that the only possible conclusion is Peter occupied a position of primacy, first among equals, instead of possessing a superior authority over the other apostles and whatever keys and authority Peter had, the rest of the apostles had as well.
34.Because of our claim to resemble the ancient church, we receive a counter-claim that we are not like the ancient church because the structure of the leadership of our church have the First Presidency in addition to the Quorum of the Twelve which gives us 15 (3+12) instead of 12 leaders as seen in the New Testament [interestingly, the 3+12 structure can be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls' Manual of Discipline. Col 8. THE DEAD SEA SCRIPTURES (Gaster). p.60]. A valid answer is the fact that the New Testament is very vague concerning the structure of the church. It tells us offhand about different offices but doesn't give any discourse about the structure of the church or what the different offices perform. Because of this, it is not possible to say the structure of our church doesn't resemble the ancient church despite possessing similar offices because the ancient church is not clearly described in the Bible.
In addition, it is a mistake to automatically assume that the Twelve were the only head of the early Christian church. It is noticeable that James, the brother of Jesus was in a position of supremacy and Peter was the head of the twelve. This shows the division between the office of James and the office of Peter and the rest of the Twelve. Despite the lack of any mention of two councilors of James, I feel it is safe to assume that based upon the division of the Twelve and its submission to James, that James was the President of the church in a First Presidency and Peter was the head of the Quorum of the Twelve.
