More Thoughts on (Mis)Interpreting the Synod

 

Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”)

—St. Thomas Aquinas

 

Introduction

A few days have passed since the preliminary synod has begun. I’ve been reading different things on Facebook, Catholic Blogs and news sites (secular and religious). And of course, there is the usual antics of individual Catholics making their comments on all of these places. There has been some good reporting from the Vatican Information Service and Zenit. I have unfortunately seen the other side: Too much commentary based on too little knowledge. This combination has shaken many of the faithful.

The Problem

Some are people who have misinterpreted the intention of the synod (to see how to better pass on the Church teaching and minister to those who have managed to place themselves outside of them) and falsely hope to see the Church changing her teaching on issues of sexual morality. Others are Catholics who fear the Church will change her teaching and teach error.

These false hopes and fears seem to stem from the fact that too many people are relying on what they think they know. When people hold their assumptions as true, and then encounter information which seems to reinforce these assumptions, they tend to think their fears or hopes are proven true. A person need not have a malicious intention for this to happen. It’s just what happens when a person wrongly assume they know something.

I think a lot of this happens to come from a vicious circle. The media sees Pope Francis as a liberal, and everything he says or does that may sound liberal in the ears of the listener (whether they approve of liberalism or loathe it) confirms the hopes or fears. They write about it from their perspective. People read these articles and have their hopes or fears reinforced by them. Pretty soon, it’s taken as a fact and the Pope is going to save or destroy the Church—but nobody ever asks whether their view is actually true. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, 

Once this view is held as fact (and it isn’t fact), it becomes easy to use the assumption as the basis of predicting all sorts of ridiculous things. The synod is one of these things. If a person sees Pope Francis as a liberal, they assume the synod will change the rules from Not-X to X, and think it is a good thing or bad thing depending on their political slant. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

Now, yes, there are people in the Church who do choose to act and think from a political perspective. I don’t believe the Pope is one but, even if some do, we should not fear that the Church will embrace error . . . if we truly believe the Church is what she claims to be. Let’s look at this.

Why I don’t Fear the Synod

Christ made some promises to His Church, and these promises have rational implications whether one accepts them or not. They also have rational implications for people who don’t consider the ramifications of their views.

The first promise is:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20  Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matt 16:18-19)

The second promise is:

8  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt:18:18)

The third promise is:

18  Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

The fourth promise is:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

They’re pretty powerful promises. They establish that Jesus Christ has established a Church, and given it His authority to teach, binding and loosing. He is shown to be with His Church always—there is no trying to place Jesus in opposition to His Church. Trying to do so is to effectively deny that His promises have any weight: If the Church can teach error, then either Jesus Christ failed to keep His promises (blasphemous) or the Church simply misinterpreted what Christ intended to say (which means it does not matter what the Church teaches at the synod, because she has no authority to teach at all).

Now of course, to be a faithful Catholic, we cannot accept that Christ’s promises were false, and we cannot accept that the Church misinterpreted them. So we have to accept them.

The implications of accepting these promises are important. If Jesus gave His authority to teach to His Apostles and promised the gates of the netherworld (literally ᾅδου—the place of departed spirits) would not prevail against it. But they would die (see 1 Corinthians 15:22). So for Christ’s promise to be kept, it would have to be applied to the legitimate successors of the Apostles—the Pope and the bishops in communion with him until “the end of the age."

The next implication is that for things bound/loosed on Earth to be bound in Heaven means one of two things:

1. Either God will bind/loose error in Heaven, or . . . 
2. God will protect His Church from teaching error in binding and loosing.

But because nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27), we cannot accept the first option. So we can trust in the second.

Now, recognizing this, we can know that the Church cannot teach error when binding or loosing on matters pertaining to our salvation. The Church is sent to teach and baptize, bringing all nations to Christ. She can’t do His mission if she can lead them astray. Binding teaching is not just in matters which are ex cathedra (formally declared to be taught infallibly). Pope Pius XII made this clear in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This also applies to matters where the Church, under the authority of the Pope intends to teach what we must do. Now, think of it. If the Church can decree in a synod, “It is permissible for divorced and (invalidly) remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist,” and that decree went against God’s will, that would be a teaching contradicting a matter pertaining to salvation (see 1 Cor. 11:27). A matter which we cannot accept as Catholics.

So, that’s why I am not afraid of the results of the synod. There are people inside and outside of the Church who may have false ideas about what the Church can do. Some of them may be at this synod. We don’t know. But even if there are, they will not prevail against the Church. Not because of the holiness or intelligence of those attending . . . but because Jesus promised us this.

If we would be the faithful Catholics we would claim to be, let’s keep faith in Christ, even if we are fearful of the reports across the world.

More Thoughts on (Mis)Interpreting the Synod

 

Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”)

—St. Thomas Aquinas

 

Introduction

A few days have passed since the preliminary synod has begun. I’ve been reading different things on Facebook, Catholic Blogs and news sites (secular and religious). And of course, there is the usual antics of individual Catholics making their comments on all of these places. There has been some good reporting from the Vatican Information Service and Zenit. I have unfortunately seen the other side: Too much commentary based on too little knowledge. This combination has shaken many of the faithful.

The Problem

Some are people who have misinterpreted the intention of the synod (to see how to better pass on the Church teaching and minister to those who have managed to place themselves outside of them) and falsely hope to see the Church changing her teaching on issues of sexual morality. Others are Catholics who fear the Church will change her teaching and teach error.

These false hopes and fears seem to stem from the fact that too many people are relying on what they think they know. When people hold their assumptions as true, and then encounter information which seems to reinforce these assumptions, they tend to think their fears or hopes are proven true. A person need not have a malicious intention for this to happen. It’s just what happens when a person wrongly assume they know something.

I think a lot of this happens to come from a vicious circle. The media sees Pope Francis as a liberal, and everything he says or does that may sound liberal in the ears of the listener (whether they approve of liberalism or loathe it) confirms the hopes or fears. They write about it from their perspective. People read these articles and have their hopes or fears reinforced by them. Pretty soon, it’s taken as a fact and the Pope is going to save or destroy the Church—but nobody ever asks whether their view is actually true. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, 

Once this view is held as fact (and it isn’t fact), it becomes easy to use the assumption as the basis of predicting all sorts of ridiculous things. The synod is one of these things. If a person sees Pope Francis as a liberal, they assume the synod will change the rules from Not-X to X, and think it is a good thing or bad thing depending on their political slant. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).

Now, yes, there are people in the Church who do choose to act and think from a political perspective. I don’t believe the Pope is one but, even if some do, we should not fear that the Church will embrace error . . . if we truly believe the Church is what she claims to be. Let’s look at this.

Why I don’t Fear the Synod

Christ made some promises to His Church, and these promises have rational implications whether one accepts them or not. They also have rational implications for people who don’t consider the ramifications of their views.

The first promise is:

18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” 20  Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah. (Matt 16:18-19)

The second promise is:

8  Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt:18:18)

The third promise is:

18  Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:18-20)

The fourth promise is:

22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. 23  Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.” (John 20:22-23)

They’re pretty powerful promises. They establish that Jesus Christ has established a Church, and given it His authority to teach, binding and loosing. He is shown to be with His Church always—there is no trying to place Jesus in opposition to His Church. Trying to do so is to effectively deny that His promises have any weight: If the Church can teach error, then either Jesus Christ failed to keep His promises (blasphemous) or the Church simply misinterpreted what Christ intended to say (which means it does not matter what the Church teaches at the synod, because she has no authority to teach at all).

Now of course, to be a faithful Catholic, we cannot accept that Christ’s promises were false, and we cannot accept that the Church misinterpreted them. So we have to accept them.

The implications of accepting these promises are important. If Jesus gave His authority to teach to His Apostles and promised the gates of the netherworld (literally ᾅδου—the place of departed spirits) would not prevail against it. But they would die (see 1 Corinthians 15:22). So for Christ’s promise to be kept, it would have to be applied to the legitimate successors of the Apostles—the Pope and the bishops in communion with him until “the end of the age."

The next implication is that for things bound/loosed on Earth to be bound in Heaven means one of two things:

1. Either God will bind/loose error in Heaven, or . . . 
2. God will protect His Church from teaching error in binding and loosing.

But because nothing impure can enter Heaven (Rev 21:27), we cannot accept the first option. So we can trust in the second.

Now, recognizing this, we can know that the Church cannot teach error when binding or loosing on matters pertaining to our salvation. The Church is sent to teach and baptize, bringing all nations to Christ. She can’t do His mission if she can lead them astray. Binding teaching is not just in matters which are ex cathedra (formally declared to be taught infallibly). Pope Pius XII made this clear in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

This also applies to matters where the Church, under the authority of the Pope intends to teach what we must do. Now, think of it. If the Church can decree in a synod, “It is permissible for divorced and (invalidly) remarried Catholics to receive the Eucharist,” and that decree went against God’s will, that would be a teaching contradicting a matter pertaining to salvation (see 1 Cor. 11:27). A matter which we cannot accept as Catholics.

So, that’s why I am not afraid of the results of the synod. There are people inside and outside of the Church who may have false ideas about what the Church can do. Some of them may be at this synod. We don’t know. But even if there are, they will not prevail against the Church. Not because of the holiness or intelligence of those attending . . . but because Jesus promised us this.

If we would be the faithful Catholics we would claim to be, let’s keep faith in Christ, even if we are fearful of the reports across the world.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true.  Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith.  However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians.  Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles.  The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid.  We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute.  I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible,  Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance.  The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true.  Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct.  No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge).  Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief.  Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic.  For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X].  Therefore it is false."  Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations.  What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not.  However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties.  If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing.  This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists.  Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here.  On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?"  (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired.  We do believe this to be true.  The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture.  If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject.  Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church.  The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise.  In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe.  Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.

Thoughts on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IVa): Preliminaries on What Divides Catholics and Protestants

(Those who read the earlier version of Article IIIb may have expected this to be article IIIc. I decided to make it IVa simply because it is a different topic from the topic of infallibility in article IIIa and IIIb).

Preliminary Notes

Of course a topic like this will invoke strong feelings.  Whether Catholic or Protestant, those who practice their faith out of devotion (as opposed to a "meh, whatever" attitude of indifference) belong because they believe their teachings to be true.  Of course, Catholicism and Protestantism cannot both be true.

If Protestantism is true, then it means that Catholicism added to the teachings of the Christian faith.  However, if Catholicism is true, then it means that Protestantism subtracted from the teachings of the Christian faith.

I would ask the reader to remember I am not writing this as an "in your face" attack on non-Catholic Christians.  Rather, I seek to demonstrate why Catholics do not recognize the concept of sola scriptura as part of the teaching of Christ.

Introduction

Of course the entire subject of the disputes between Catholics and Protestants are too large to deal with in one article — or even a series of articles.  The focus of this article is to lay down some pitfalls to avoid.  We need to avoid the use of logical fallacies and we need to realize what is under dispute.  I have certainly seen internet debates where Catholic and Protestant spoke past each other because they did not realize they used the same terms in different ways leading to each side accusing the other of being obstinate.

Argument from Ignorance is a Fallacy

One thing essential to remember is that the argument that "[X] is not mentioned in the Bible,  Therefore it was added later," is an argument from ignorance.  The argument from ignorance basically makes an assumption that because a thing was not said it means it is not true.  Alternately, some have used it to say that since there is no argument against the view it must be true.

Neither view is correct.  No logical conclusion can be drawn from nothing (no knowledge).  Rather we need to see what sort of evidence exists for a belief.  Now in the court of law, the defendant is assumed innocent until proven guilty.  This means that the burden of proof is on one side, while the other side merely has to show why the prosecution cannot prove his case.

However, in discussions where the truth is being sought, both sides need to present their justifications, and we cannot accept the assumption that because one side has failed to present their case that the other side must automatically be true.

The fact that Scripture does not say a thing neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  One must recognize that there can be other reasons for not speaking on a topic.  For example, Paul speaking on circumcision in his epistles may find the topic of primacy irrelevant to the point he wishes to make.

This is important to remember because often debates over religious beliefs boil down to claiming "your side isn't mentioned in [X].  Therefore it is false."  Because of this, we must recognize that accepting or denying a belief cannot be based on this sort of reasoning.

Assumptions and Sola Scriptura

This leads us into the next issue of concern, and that is the issue of assumptions and interpretations.  What one holds to be true may in fact be true whether or not the individual can explain himself in a logical way or not.  However, if one wants to convince another, there needs to be some sort of acceptance of the premise between two parties.  If both parties do not accept something, then it is this issue which needs to be established before continuing.  This is why Christians of different denominations do not begin their disputes with the question of whether God exists.  Since both believe this to be true, they do not need to start here.  On the other hand, a Christian and an atheist debating would need to be starting somewhere closer to the question of "does God exist?"  (The precise spot would depend on what sort of beliefs the atheist had about the idea of what we can know, whether we can know truth and so on).

Failure to start at the point of difference will result in nothing more than a waste of time, as both sides talk past each other.

In terms of Church authority and Sola Scriptura, the difference is not over whether Catholics believe the Bible to be inspired.  We do believe this to be true.  The key area of difference is over the authority to interpret Scripture.  If a Protestant says "Catholicism cannot be true, for the Catholic Church teaches [X] and the Bible clearly forbids [X]," the Catholic will rightly want to know on what authority the Protestant can interpret Scripture in a binding fashion on this subject.  Likewise, the Protestant who hears that the Church has defined something infallibly will generally reject it because they do not believe the Pope has this authority.

Thus, the true issue between Catholic and Protestant is Who has the authority to interpret what is and is not authentically Christian.

Anyone who has been paying attention to this series so far will realize I have done my best to demonstrate the basis on which the Catholic believes in the teaching authority of the Church, though any failure is due to my own lack of ability and not that of the Church.  The non-Catholic may not believe in the Catholic authority to interpret Scripture in a binding manner, but they cannot deny we do accept the authority of Scripture in holding this view.

Conclusion

Now, we need to look at Sola Scriptura and the basis for holding it, and why a Catholic does not accept the premise.  In doing so, I hope to clear up some misconceptions on what Catholics do believe.  Thus I will look at the claims of sola scriptura and do my best to find a representative view of what it means in light of the differences between some denominations on the subject.

Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Interlude II): On the Need to Define

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe
• Article IIIa
• Article IIIb

I thought one further thought was necessary before moving on to the idea of Sola Scriptura in contrast with Church authority, and that was the issue of when the Church felt a need to define something.  I also decided that at 2500 words, article IIIb might become unwieldy if I chose to add this discussion there.  Hence, this "Interlude II."

The Issue in Question

There is one issue which I thought I should mention before going on to Sola Scriptura and Church authority, and that is pointing out that the Church only defines something infallibly when she perceives a need to do so.  If the Church does not see a need to formally make an infallible decision, she can rely on the exercise of the ordinary magisterium instead of acting ex cathedra.  Unfortunately this has sometimes been misunderstood to mean that because the Church defined [X] in year [Y], this means the Church did not believe [X] until year [Y].  However, when the Church chooses to define a thing ex cathedra it is either in response to an error or is done for the benefit of the faithful, and does not necessarily happen immediately following the time of the error in question (hence the frustration among some Catholics about the lack of seen discipline administered by the Church). 

The Example of Transubstantiation

The Church defined Transubstantiation in AD 1215 in Lateran Council IV.  Some have made the error of assuming that it was not until 1215 that anyone believed in Transubstantiation.  Lorraine Boettner has employed this assumption in his execrable anti-Catholic book Roman Catholicism, but such arguments demonstrate a post hoc fallacy (assuming that because it was infallibly defined in 1215, the definition caused the belief beginning in 1215).  However, history can demonstrate this is false.

For example, Berengarius of Tours (AD 999-1088) was a monk who began to deny, beginning in 1047, the Catholic belief that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ as He proclaimed.  Needless to say, 1047 is 168 years prior to 1215, so a claim that it was not believed before 1215 can be demonstrated to be false.

He was condemned for his heretical belief, but the Church did not see it as necessary to infallibly define the definition at this time when it denounced him. 

The Catholic Church in fact defined Transubstantiation in AD 1215, not because the belief began in AD 1215, but because of certain heresies (Lateran IV denounced the Albigensians, Waldensians and Joachim of Flora for their errors), were again denying the Catholic belief and the Church chose to formally lay down what it believed about the Eucharist and what beliefs were in opposition to the faith.

Conclusion

At any rate, the important thing to remember is that when a thing was defined is not an indication that it was not believed before then.  The Church rejected Arius in Nicaea I in AD 325, but this does not mean (as Dan Brown alleged in his wretched Da Vinci Code) that nobody believed in Jesus being God before AD 325.

A thing is defined infallibly only when the Church sees a need to defining it in such an extraordinary way, and this does not mean that the Church did not teach on the subject authoritatively beforehand.

Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Interlude II): On the Need to Define

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe
• Article IIIa
• Article IIIb

I thought one further thought was necessary before moving on to the idea of Sola Scriptura in contrast with Church authority, and that was the issue of when the Church felt a need to define something.  I also decided that at 2500 words, article IIIb might become unwieldy if I chose to add this discussion there.  Hence, this "Interlude II."

The Issue in Question

There is one issue which I thought I should mention before going on to Sola Scriptura and Church authority, and that is pointing out that the Church only defines something infallibly when she perceives a need to do so.  If the Church does not see a need to formally make an infallible decision, she can rely on the exercise of the ordinary magisterium instead of acting ex cathedra.  Unfortunately this has sometimes been misunderstood to mean that because the Church defined [X] in year [Y], this means the Church did not believe [X] until year [Y].  However, when the Church chooses to define a thing ex cathedra it is either in response to an error or is done for the benefit of the faithful, and does not necessarily happen immediately following the time of the error in question (hence the frustration among some Catholics about the lack of seen discipline administered by the Church). 

The Example of Transubstantiation

The Church defined Transubstantiation in AD 1215 in Lateran Council IV.  Some have made the error of assuming that it was not until 1215 that anyone believed in Transubstantiation.  Lorraine Boettner has employed this assumption in his execrable anti-Catholic book Roman Catholicism, but such arguments demonstrate a post hoc fallacy (assuming that because it was infallibly defined in 1215, the definition caused the belief beginning in 1215).  However, history can demonstrate this is false.

For example, Berengarius of Tours (AD 999-1088) was a monk who began to deny, beginning in 1047, the Catholic belief that the bread and wine in the Eucharist become the body and blood of Christ as He proclaimed.  Needless to say, 1047 is 168 years prior to 1215, so a claim that it was not believed before 1215 can be demonstrated to be false.

He was condemned for his heretical belief, but the Church did not see it as necessary to infallibly define the definition at this time when it denounced him. 

The Catholic Church in fact defined Transubstantiation in AD 1215, not because the belief began in AD 1215, but because of certain heresies (Lateran IV denounced the Albigensians, Waldensians and Joachim of Flora for their errors), were again denying the Catholic belief and the Church chose to formally lay down what it believed about the Eucharist and what beliefs were in opposition to the faith.

Conclusion

At any rate, the important thing to remember is that when a thing was defined is not an indication that it was not believed before then.  The Church rejected Arius in Nicaea I in AD 325, but this does not mean (as Dan Brown alleged in his wretched Da Vinci Code) that nobody believed in Jesus being God before AD 325.

A thing is defined infallibly only when the Church sees a need to defining it in such an extraordinary way, and this does not mean that the Church did not teach on the subject authoritatively beforehand.

Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IIIb): What Catholics DO Believe

Preliminary Notes

I have not forgotten this series.  Rather it was a matter of prayer and study in seeking to present the Church teachings as best as I am able to express myself.  Hopefully this article will succeed in expressing what Catholics in fact do believe about Infallibility and not lead the reader to a false understanding on the subject which the Church does not intend.

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe
• Article IIIa

Introduction

So now we come down to the defining moment.  What the Church does in fact believe about infallibility.  From what the Church does believe and why, criticisms which are relevant can be made.  Those who criticize based on false assumptions, they do not validly challenge our belief.

This becomes especially relevant in light of certain individuals who have recently claimed that the Pope was changing the Church view of condoms on the basis of an interview published by a third party and not released by the Vatican itself.  I think enough has been said on that topic, but it remains an interesting example of how Papal Teaching can be misunderstood.

Primacy and Infallibility are Linked

The first thing we need to do is recognize how infallibility is linked to primacy.  Contrary to other denominations, Catholicism believes that Jesus intended a visible Church with a visible head which has the authority to make the final determination on what is and is not compatible with following Christ and that determination is binding.  Thus, while we may have individuals or groups who disagree with Catholic teaching as passed on by the Magisterium, we believe such individuals/groups have no authority to impose their own interpretations over the whole Church.

Thus, while I am free to read the Bible and to seek to apply the teachings of Scripture to my life, I am not free to declare my own interpretation of the Bible binding and free of error.  (later on in the series I will discuss the idea of Church authority vs. Sola Scriptura).

Because Catholics believe that Christ entrusted His mission to the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Apostles, and because we believe that the Pope and the Bishops are the successors to Peter and the Apostles, we believe they continue to have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18).

Now, if what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, we have three possible scenarios:

1. If the Church binds in error, error will be found in Heaven
2. If the Church binds in error, and error is not bound in Heaven, then Christ spoke falsely or imprecisely.
3. Because God will not bind error in Heaven, He will protect His Church from binding error on Earth.

While non-Catholics may reject the idea that this is the meaning at all, it does follow that, in the Catholic faith, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe that God can protect His Church from teaching error.

The Analogy of the Math Test

I think the best analogy I have read for infallibility was given by Karl Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism page 215), which I will paraphrase.  He offers this scenario.  Assume that the Pope was considered infallible in Math rather than in Faith and Morals.  Assume he was given a set of 100 problems to solve.  How many would he have to get right in order to be infallible.

The answer is not 100.  It is actually zero.  If the Pope turned in a blank sheet of paper, he would not have gotten any wrong.

Of course turning in a blank sheet of paper would not actually benefit anyone looking to the Pope for instruction, and the same would be true here.  There will be constant incidents as long as the Church is on Earth where the faithful will have ideas and questions.  Is this war just?  Is this behavior with my spouse moral?  Do I have a right to steal from a company which unjustly fires me?  Does the Bible support Arianism?

Merely Remaining Silent Is a Failure to Follow Christ's Mandate

The Church cannot simply hide away and say nothing when faced with the question of what must I do to be faithful to Christ?.  The great commission of Christ commands us…

^19 Go, therefore, ^and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, ^20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. ^And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)

… and requires the Church to face the challenges of the world pointing out what is right and what is wrong in relationship to our following Christ.  So if a man named Arius comes out with an idea, "There once was a time when the Son was not," and cites Scripture to justify his rule, does the Church stay silent?  Or does she admonish the sinner, making use of the authority given her by Christ to determine what is authentic and what is not?

Since I have pointed out that Infallibility is not some sort of prophecy, but rather a protection from error and since I have pointed out above that the Church cannot simply remain silent to avoid error because Christ commands us to make disciples of all nations, it follows that the Church must pray, study and reflect on the teachings of Christ through Scripture and Tradition, and look to how the saints have expressed the relationship of Christ and Man in the past to determine whether or not a proposed view is compatible with this teaching of Christ passed on to us by the Apostles.

What Infallibility Is

The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus explains what it means to be infallible, though due to the language of the 19th century, it may be harder for the 21st century audience to understand.  So let us first look at the text and then seek to explain it:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

(See also Catechism of the Catholic Church #889-891 for further explanation)

From this description, we can see an infallible teaching has certain conditions:

1. The Pope is speaking as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, and not as a private individual
2. the Pope proclaims by a definitive act
3. a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
4. which directed to the entire Church.

This actually excludes a lot which some have pointed to in order to reject infallibility.

What this definition excludes

When the Pope speaks as a private individual (as he did in Light of the World or Jesus of Nazareth), he is not using his Papal authority and such a work is not viewed as a document of the Church.  It may repeat doctrines which are held definitively by the Church, but the authority of those doctrines come through the Church teaching and not that private view.  These books may indeed offer brilliant insights to further our understanding of the faith, but the point of such a book is not to be an "official teaching."

This is why the media reports of "changing teaching" in Light of the World was false.  This sort of medium is not used to make a definition to be binding on the faithful.

Because it limits ex cathedra to a definitive act, we are made aware of what is binding.  For example of a definitive act, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the following:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

By his formal declaration, Pope John Paul II has made clear that the Church cannot ordain women and that this must be held by the faithful.  Any view which denies this teaching cannot be considered a Catholic belief.

By limiting it to faith and morals, other elements like disciplines and customs are not considered infallible.  Limiting the priesthood to unmarried men in the West, whether to permit the vernacular in the Mass, whether to permit or withhold the chalice to the laity or other practices… these are disciplines, not doctrines, and can be changed for the good of the Church at the time without disproving the infallibility of the Pope.  This is because such disciplines were never held to be infallible to begin with.

Finally, by directing it to the entire Church, it eliminates obligations which are merely directed to certain areas or groups.  If the Pope denounces a behavior in one region (say for example, performing a devotion which is being abused), it does not mean that such a behavior is denounced everywhere.

For example, in Medieval France, there was a heretical group known as the Cathari or Albigensians who had a rather warped view of God and Jesus Christ.  To prevent the errors of the Albigensians from spreading, the laity in that region were forbidden from reading Scripture on their own.  It does not follow from this that the Catholic Church "forbade the laity everywhere" from reading the Bible.  The limited time frame and limited region demonstrate that such an obligation was not infallible, and was never considered to be a universal ban (in all times and places) on reading the Bible .

Ordinary Authority of the Magisterium

Now there is an unfortunate view among certain Catholics that anything which is not explicitly bound by an infallible decree is merely an opinion.  This is false however.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the Ordinary magisterium:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So it isn't a case of "either infallible or opinion."  The ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in terms of faith and morals lead to a deeper understanding of Revelation.  The difference is that the Church does not intend a formal definition (which is usually used to define the difference between what view is inside the Church and what view is outside the Church), but rather a deepened understanding where a formal ex cathedra definition is seen as unnecessary.  Far from being "an opinion" such a teaching requires "religious assent" (must be firmly believed)

Lumen Gentium #25 tells us:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Donum veritatis #23 tells us:

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

In other words, even when the intent is not to define something in an infallible manner, when the Church teaches in a way to show how an aspect of faith and morals is conformity with the truth or to show how an attitude is not compatible with the faith, this is not an opinion, but rather still within the prerogative of Peter to bind and loose in a way obligatory for the faithful.

Such a teaching may be further refined, but will never contradict what the Church teaches already has taught.

Conclusion: It All Leads Back to Primacy

It is crucial to keep in mind that this is not some sort of charism which makes the Pope a sinless prophet, but is our faith that God will not let the gates of Hell prevail over His Church by authoritatively teaching error when Christ has made obedience to the Church necessary (See Luke 10:16).  Catholics believe that God would not make a declaration that those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated as tax collectors (Matt 18:17) without protecting the Church from teaching what is wrong.

Now I recognize that certain non-Catholics who deny Papal primacy will point to certain teachings and say "What about [X]?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This is an issue of interpretation and the authority to interpret the Bible in a binding way.

I hope to address this issue of Church Authority and Sola Scriptura beginning in article IVa. 

Reflections on Primacy and Infallibility (Article IIIb): What Catholics DO Believe

Preliminary Notes

I have not forgotten this series.  Rather it was a matter of prayer and study in seeking to present the Church teachings as best as I am able to express myself.  Hopefully this article will succeed in expressing what Catholics in fact do believe about Infallibility and not lead the reader to a false understanding on the subject which the Church does not intend.

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe
• Article IIIa

Introduction

So now we come down to the defining moment.  What the Church does in fact believe about infallibility.  From what the Church does believe and why, criticisms which are relevant can be made.  Those who criticize based on false assumptions, they do not validly challenge our belief.

This becomes especially relevant in light of certain individuals who have recently claimed that the Pope was changing the Church view of condoms on the basis of an interview published by a third party and not released by the Vatican itself.  I think enough has been said on that topic, but it remains an interesting example of how Papal Teaching can be misunderstood.

Primacy and Infallibility are Linked

The first thing we need to do is recognize how infallibility is linked to primacy.  Contrary to other denominations, Catholicism believes that Jesus intended a visible Church with a visible head which has the authority to make the final determination on what is and is not compatible with following Christ and that determination is binding.  Thus, while we may have individuals or groups who disagree with Catholic teaching as passed on by the Magisterium, we believe such individuals/groups have no authority to impose their own interpretations over the whole Church.

Thus, while I am free to read the Bible and to seek to apply the teachings of Scripture to my life, I am not free to declare my own interpretation of the Bible binding and free of error.  (later on in the series I will discuss the idea of Church authority vs. Sola Scriptura).

Because Catholics believe that Christ entrusted His mission to the Apostles, with Peter as the head of the Apostles, and because we believe that the Pope and the Bishops are the successors to Peter and the Apostles, we believe they continue to have the authority to bind and loose (Matt 16:19; 18:18).

Now, if what is bound on Earth will be bound in Heaven, we have three possible scenarios:

1. If the Church binds in error, error will be found in Heaven
2. If the Church binds in error, and error is not bound in Heaven, then Christ spoke falsely or imprecisely.
3. Because God will not bind error in Heaven, He will protect His Church from binding error on Earth.

While non-Catholics may reject the idea that this is the meaning at all, it does follow that, in the Catholic faith, it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe that God can protect His Church from teaching error.

The Analogy of the Math Test

I think the best analogy I have read for infallibility was given by Karl Keating (Catholicism and Fundamentalism page 215), which I will paraphrase.  He offers this scenario.  Assume that the Pope was considered infallible in Math rather than in Faith and Morals.  Assume he was given a set of 100 problems to solve.  How many would he have to get right in order to be infallible.

The answer is not 100.  It is actually zero.  If the Pope turned in a blank sheet of paper, he would not have gotten any wrong.

Of course turning in a blank sheet of paper would not actually benefit anyone looking to the Pope for instruction, and the same would be true here.  There will be constant incidents as long as the Church is on Earth where the faithful will have ideas and questions.  Is this war just?  Is this behavior with my spouse moral?  Do I have a right to steal from a company which unjustly fires me?  Does the Bible support Arianism?

Merely Remaining Silent Is a Failure to Follow Christ's Mandate

The Church cannot simply hide away and say nothing when faced with the question of what must I do to be faithful to Christ?.  The great commission of Christ commands us…

^19 Go, therefore, ^and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, ^20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. ^And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:19-20)

… and requires the Church to face the challenges of the world pointing out what is right and what is wrong in relationship to our following Christ.  So if a man named Arius comes out with an idea, "There once was a time when the Son was not," and cites Scripture to justify his rule, does the Church stay silent?  Or does she admonish the sinner, making use of the authority given her by Christ to determine what is authentic and what is not?

Since I have pointed out that Infallibility is not some sort of prophecy, but rather a protection from error and since I have pointed out above that the Church cannot simply remain silent to avoid error because Christ commands us to make disciples of all nations, it follows that the Church must pray, study and reflect on the teachings of Christ through Scripture and Tradition, and look to how the saints have expressed the relationship of Christ and Man in the past to determine whether or not a proposed view is compatible with this teaching of Christ passed on to us by the Apostles.

What Infallibility Is

The Vatican I document Pastor Aeternus explains what it means to be infallible, though due to the language of the 19th century, it may be harder for the 21st century audience to understand.  So let us first look at the text and then seek to explain it:

Therefore, faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the Christian faith, to the glory of God our savior, for the exaltation of the Catholic religion and for the salvation of the Christian people, with the approval of the Sacred Council, we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

(See also Catechism of the Catholic Church #889-891 for further explanation)

From this description, we can see an infallible teaching has certain conditions:

1. The Pope is speaking as the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church, and not as a private individual
2. the Pope proclaims by a definitive act
3. a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals
4. which directed to the entire Church.

This actually excludes a lot which some have pointed to in order to reject infallibility.

What this definition excludes

When the Pope speaks as a private individual (as he did in Light of the World or Jesus of Nazareth), he is not using his Papal authority and such a work is not viewed as a document of the Church.  It may repeat doctrines which are held definitively by the Church, but the authority of those doctrines come through the Church teaching and not that private view.  These books may indeed offer brilliant insights to further our understanding of the faith, but the point of such a book is not to be an "official teaching."

This is why the media reports of "changing teaching" in Light of the World was false.  This sort of medium is not used to make a definition to be binding on the faithful.

Because it limits ex cathedra to a definitive act, we are made aware of what is binding.  For example of a definitive act, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, the following:

Wherefore, in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.

By his formal declaration, Pope John Paul II has made clear that the Church cannot ordain women and that this must be held by the faithful.  Any view which denies this teaching cannot be considered a Catholic belief.

By limiting it to faith and morals, other elements like disciplines and customs are not considered infallible.  Limiting the priesthood to unmarried men in the West, whether to permit the vernacular in the Mass, whether to permit or withhold the chalice to the laity or other practices… these are disciplines, not doctrines, and can be changed for the good of the Church at the time without disproving the infallibility of the Pope.  This is because such disciplines were never held to be infallible to begin with.

Finally, by directing it to the entire Church, it eliminates obligations which are merely directed to certain areas or groups.  If the Pope denounces a behavior in one region (say for example, performing a devotion which is being abused), it does not mean that such a behavior is denounced everywhere.

For example, in Medieval France, there was a heretical group known as the Cathari or Albigensians who had a rather warped view of God and Jesus Christ.  To prevent the errors of the Albigensians from spreading, the laity in that region were forbidden from reading Scripture on their own.  It does not follow from this that the Catholic Church "forbade the laity everywhere" from reading the Bible.  The limited time frame and limited region demonstrate that such an obligation was not infallible, and was never considered to be a universal ban (in all times and places) on reading the Bible .

Ordinary Authority of the Magisterium

Now there is an unfortunate view among certain Catholics that anything which is not explicitly bound by an infallible decree is merely an opinion.  This is false however.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church has this to say about the Ordinary magisterium:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a "definitive manner," they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful "are to adhere to it with religious assent"422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So it isn't a case of "either infallible or opinion."  The ordinary teachings of the Magisterium in terms of faith and morals lead to a deeper understanding of Revelation.  The difference is that the Church does not intend a formal definition (which is usually used to define the difference between what view is inside the Church and what view is outside the Church), but rather a deepened understanding where a formal ex cathedra definition is seen as unnecessary.  Far from being "an opinion" such a teaching requires "religious assent" (must be firmly believed)

Lumen Gentium #25 tells us:

Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be respected by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.

Donum veritatis #23 tells us:

When the Magisterium proposes "in a definitive way" truths concerning faith and morals, which, even if not divinely revealed, are nevertheless strictly and intimately connected with Revelation, these must be firmly accepted and held.(22)

When the Magisterium, not intending to act "definitively", teaches a doctrine to aid a better understanding of Revelation and make explicit its contents, or to recall how some teaching is in conformity with the truths of faith, or finally to guard against ideas that are incompatible with these truths, the response called for is that of the religious submission of will and intellect.(23) This kind of response cannot be simply exterior or disciplinary but must be understood within the logic of faith and under the impulse of obedience to the faith.

In other words, even when the intent is not to define something in an infallible manner, when the Church teaches in a way to show how an aspect of faith and morals is conformity with the truth or to show how an attitude is not compatible with the faith, this is not an opinion, but rather still within the prerogative of Peter to bind and loose in a way obligatory for the faithful.

Such a teaching may be further refined, but will never contradict what the Church teaches already has taught.

Conclusion: It All Leads Back to Primacy

It is crucial to keep in mind that this is not some sort of charism which makes the Pope a sinless prophet, but is our faith that God will not let the gates of Hell prevail over His Church by authoritatively teaching error when Christ has made obedience to the Church necessary (See Luke 10:16).  Catholics believe that God would not make a declaration that those who will not listen to the Church are to be treated as tax collectors (Matt 18:17) without protecting the Church from teaching what is wrong.

Now I recognize that certain non-Catholics who deny Papal primacy will point to certain teachings and say "What about [X]?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This is an issue of interpretation and the authority to interpret the Bible in a binding way.

I hope to address this issue of Church Authority and Sola Scriptura beginning in article IVa. 

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IIe): Peter and James

The Series Thus Far

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId

Introduction

One of the most common arguments against the leadership of Peter is based around a passage in Galatians 2:

^{11 }And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

^12 For, until some people came from James, ^he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

^13 And the rest of the Jews ^(also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

^14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

The argument is that because Paul withstood Peter to his face and because people came from James that Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, it means Peter could not have been the leader of the Apostles.  These verses are often used to interpret other passages (such as James role in Acts 15) to claim it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church.

Other Christians who deny any Apostle had leadership of the Church still use this passage, while overlooking the claims to the primacy of James.

The Issue to Be Explored

In Article IIc and IId I pointed out things from the Gospels and Acts which demonstrated some of the Scriptural basis for Catholic belief in the primacy of Peter, showing Christ's promises and Peter's actions once Christ had ascended to Heaven.

It stands to reason that any person wishing to argue the Primacy of James within the Church is just as obligated as the Catholic to demonstrate his position from Scripture and the understanding of the early Christians.  The person who would argue that Catholics have to "stretch" the meaning of Scripture to justify their position must meet the same burden of proof that he or she puts on the Catholic.

So the question is: Does such evidence exist, or is it nothing more than the fallacy of the fictitious question arguing that a thing could have happened without demonstrating that it did happen?

Let us then look at the person of James, sometimes called James the Just or James, brother of the Lord.

Who was James?

This isn't a facetious question here.  Since there were at least two James in the Bible (some scholars claim three), we need to be clear on which James we are talking about.

We do know that it was not James, son of Zebedee (Matt 10:17) and brother of John (Mark 3:17), because he was killed by Herod in Acts 12:2, while the James in question was at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15.

So the question is whether he was the Apostle James, son of Alphaeus (Acts 1:13), which some Biblical scholars believe or whether James the Just was another person.  Personally I find it interesting to note that Luther did not believe that James, author of the Epistle of James, was an Apostle, and seems to have used this belief to justify his dislike of the Epistle of James.

The reason some scholars are not certain on this, is St. James the Lesser is identified as "Son of Alphaeus" while James who wrote the Epistle of James identifies himself as "a slave of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, to the twelve tribes in the dispersion" but not as an apostle as Paul and Peter both did.  I don't think it logically follows that his not identifying himself as an apostle proves he wasn't [That feels like an argument from silence to me].  I merely report this to show that the issue is not open and shut.  We aren't sure who this James was in relation to the Apostles.

And this is our first problem with the claim of James' primacy.  We're not even sure who he was.  We know who Peter was and who Paul was with no confusion, and have Scripture and Patristics speaking about them.  But James is mentioned so infrequently that one who wishes to argue James as the head of the Church needs to explain why nobody knows much about him.

What Did James Do?

Unlike Peter, who was the driving force of Acts 1-15, and Paul who was the driving force from Acts 16 on, James has a very small role in Acts, appearing in these situations:

• In Acts 12:17, Peter tells the people gathered in the home of Mary, Mother of John Mark, to notify James of God's delivering him from captivity.
• Acts 15:13ff has James propose a solution based on Peter's decree and Paul's testimony.
• In Acts 21:18, Paul visits James in Jerusalem and tells him of what he experienced on his travels.

That's it.  The other mentions of James in Acts was of James son of Zebedee.

So the problem with trying to make James the head of the Church is that Acts says nothing which can support it.  Now silence neither proves a thing nor disproves a thing.  It merely means there is nothing said on the subject, and thus it cannot be invoked as evidence.

Now some people might argue that mentions of James in the Epistles indicate a greater role, but I believe this is an example of begging the question: assuming as true what needs to be proven, AND arguing in a circle.  James being seen as the leader of the Church on the basis of Galatians 2 is assuming Peter is not the head of the Church when reading these verses.  But that is what the person who is claiming the primacy of James has to prove.

The only thing that Galatians 2 tells us was that Peter, James and John met with Paul and gave him the mission to the gentiles, and that Peter, wishing to avoid controversy with people from James, ate apart from Gentiles.

The Unavoidable Contradiction

To those who argue that Peter was acting this way because James was head of the Church, a contradiction comes into play here.

In Acts 15, James proposes the solution to the gentile Christians.  Peter, before the arrival of James' disciples, was doing what the Apostles had decided on.  Therefore, if Peter withdrew from eating with gentiles because he feared the authority of James, it means James was enforcing something contrary to what he allegedly "decreed" (if you accept the interpretation of the authority of James over the Church).

Could This Encounter Have Happened Before Acts 15?

Some might argue in response that perhaps this was before the Council of Jerusalem.  This is not entirely impossible.  After all, there are two cities called Antioch in the region, and one of them is in Galatia, but since Paul sailed to Antioch from Attalia in Acts 14:26,  it would have to be the Antioch in the province of Syria, since the one in Galatia is in the middle of Turkey, and one gets there from Attalia by going north by land. 

Indeed, when Paul travels from Antioch (where "they spent no little time with the disciples") to Jerusalem, he travels south through Phoenicia and Samaria, which indicates they are in Syria heading south, not in Galatia, where he would have to take a ship.

So geographically, it seems that when this issue arose over Gentiles needing to live as Jews, Paul was not in the Antioch of Galatia, but in the Antioch of Syria.  Therefore, prior to Acts 15, the incident in Galatians 2 could not have occurred.

There is another problem with arguing Galatians was written before Acts 15: if this be the case, and James had not yet "ruled" on the issue (which presupposes James led the Church), then Paul had no basis on which to withstand Peter to his face.

It is only if the issue of accepting Gentiles as Christians had already been settled, that Paul could have any basis for withstanding Peter to his face.

Galatians Assumes the Authority of Peter

However, once this is accepted we have to recognize that the one who settled the issue of admitting Gentiles as Christians was settled by Peter in Acts 10:48.  So the only reason Paul could object to Peter's actions would be if he was failing to practice what he himself had taught was acceptable.

Now, from a perspective of infallibility, if Peter was not infallible when commanding the gentiles be baptized, then he could have made an error then instead of in Galatians 2, which would make Paul in the wrong.  Only if one accepts the notion of God protecting Peter from error do we have the assurance that Peter did not make a mistake.

However, since infallibility does not mean sinlessness, Peter could indeed teach something infallibly and live in a way contrary to what he taught without contradicting the belief in infallibility.

Misunderstanding Authority, Infallibility and the Catholic Church

Now I have read some who challenge the Catholic position because "If Peter were Pope, Paul would not have opposed him."  Matthew Henry argues something similar in denying that Peter could have been head of the Church in Antioch based on Paul's reaction for example.  Such a view demonstrates a lack of knowledge of Catholic history and teaching.  Most notably, a lack of knowledge of St. Catherine of Sienna, who challenged the Pope strongly to leave Avignon and return to Rome (encouraging him to do what was right) in ways which are similar to Paul withstanding Peter to his face.

Believing the Pope has authority over the Church does not mean we believe he is sinless in his life, or is infallible in making decisions concerning civil government.  There can be and have been examples of sin in the lives of Popes, and saints have called on such Popes to live as they ought to live.

So this kind of argument does not disprove the Catholic claim.  It merely displays a lack of knowledge of what the Catholics claim.

Patristic Interpretations of Scripture and the Problems with Citing Eusebius

Since there is no Scriptural evidence to justify the primacy of James, some try to look for Patristic discussion of Scripture as evidence.  The problem is, there is no Patristic evidence for the claim either, though some try to make it work.  When one searches for Patristic writings to justify the primacy of James, usually they make reference to one statement from Eusebius which indicates James the Just was chosen bishop of Jerusalem by the Apostles.  This section reads as follows:

2 Then James, whom the ancients surnamed the Just on account of the excellence of his virtue, is recorded to have been the first to be made bishop of the church of Jerusalem. This James was called the brother of the Lord because he was known as a son of Joseph, and Joseph was supposed to be the father of Christ, because the Virgin, being betrothed to him, “was found with child by the Holy Ghost before they came together,” as the account of the holy Gospels shows.

3 But Clement in the sixth book of his Hypotyposes writes thus: “For they say that Peter and James and John after the ascension of our Saviour, as if also preferred by our Lord, strove not after honor, but chose James the Just bishop of Jerusalem.”

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (104).

"Bishop of Jerusalem" is significant here.  Since this is distinguished from the Church itself, it seems to indicate a local leadership.  At any rate, it does not prove universal leadership over the Church.

Moreover, those who would cite this as rejection of Petrine authority have to deal with some other interesting claims of Eusebius, such as his denial that it was Peter who Paul rebuked in Galatians 2:

2 They say that Sosthenes also, who wrote to the Corinthians with Paul, was one of them. This is the account of Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes, in which he also says that Cephas was one of the seventy disciples, a man who bore the same name as the apostle Peter, and the one concerning whom Paul says, “When Cephas came to Antioch I withstood him to his face.”  [Emphasis added]

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (99).

So, to accept Eusebius (who cites Clement in both instances) as a source to reject the Primacy of Peter means to reject the main verse of Scripture which is used to deny the primacy of Peter: After all, if Cephas was a person distinct from Peter, then this verse cannot prove Peter was subject to James, and the argument collapses.

Likewise, if one wants to invoke Eusebius here, one must also accept Eusebius when (in speaking about the canon of Scripture) he says:

8 And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, ‘against which the gates of hell shall not prevail,’ has left one acknowledged epistle; perhaps also a second, but this is doubtful.  [Emphasis added]

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. I. Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine the Great, and Oration in Praise of Constantine. (273).

Since Eusebius merely says that James was made bishop of Jerusalem (the reader is reminded that Paul appointed bishops and presbyters as well wherever they went), and acknowledges Peter as the rock Jesus will build His Church on, one who cites Eusebius against the Catholic claims are trapped into accepting that the rock in Matthew 16:18 was Peter as well, and thus is left with the obligation to explain how Peter could be the rock on which the Church was built but James led the Church.

(An aside for those who will ask.  At the time of Eusebius' writing, the canon of Scripture was not yet formalized and some doubted the canonicity of 2 Peter).  It was not until the Church defined the canon of Scripture in AD 381 that the issue was settled which books of the Bible were recognized officially.  While an important point in the issue of Bible and Church concerning authority, this is outside the scope of this article).

Quite simply, this selection of Eusebius does not justify a claim that James was the leader of the Church, and a reading which claims otherwise is based on the assumption that it could not be Peter.

On the other hand, the Catholic claim is not threatened by Eusebius, as we believe James was head of the local Church in Jerusalem, but not of the universal Church.

There is No Case for James

The problem with the case for James is it simply does not exist.  If we do not know whether James was an Apostle or not, If we do not know what he did outside of these verses, if the witness of the Early Christians do not attest to any actions of James in the history of the Church, then one cannot claim it is proven that James led the entire Church and Peter was subordinate to him.  There simply is no evidence for James being head of the Church, and any claim to do so is based on an attempt to reject the Catholic claim to Peter.

On the other hand, the Catholic claims for the primacy of Peter is backed by Scripture and patristic writings, so as it stands, the Catholic case remains standing against the challenges that it is unbiblical and the challenges that it was James who led the Church.

People may disagree with the Catholic teaching, and I understand this.  However, the counter theories also require evidence in their favor if they are to be considered credible.

These counter-theories however do not provide evidence.  They merely depend on a personal interpretation of the Bible that presupposes Peter could not be head of the Church.

Conclusion: The Dilemma Summed Up

Here is the dilemma which faces one who seeks to use this argument to deny the Catholic belief must face: Do you believe James was head of the Church or do you not?

If one believes that James was head of the Church, then it stands to reason that his teachings must be heeded.  Yet, the idea of faith alone goes directly against what James taught, when he said, "See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone," in James 2:24. 

Now I am not here to debate beliefs like Sola fide in this article.  Rather, I wish to show there is an inconsistency among some who claim James was head of the Church while asserting something which James specifically rejected. 

So if James was head of the Church, why do those who claim he and not Peter had leadership of the Church (and remember, that by accepting the premise that James decreed the decision in Acts 15, one accepts he had authority to do so) fail to keep his teaching against faith alone?

Yet if he did not have authority to lead the Church and impose this decision, then the case for James entirely collapses.  Either he had the authority to make the decision in Acts 15 or he did not.  If he did, it follows he had authority to bind in other areas.  If he did not, he had no authority to compel Peter or Paul in Galatians.

Beliefs have consequences.  If I believe Jesus gave Peter the authority to tend His sheep then it follows that I need to give heed to his successors.  If I do not believe this, any counterclaim I have may be judged based on how I act.  Do I act as if I believe it or not?

To invoke the idea of James being head of the Church requires us to look at the beliefs of the one who claims it.  From what I have found, the arguments used to make this claim compared to the beliefs of the individuals making it indicates that the one who uses the claim to James does not really believe it, but merely seeks to deny the Catholic claim about Peter.

For the Next Time

I think I've covered Peter enough for now.  I can now move on to Article III and look at the claims the Catholic Church makes about the authority and infallibility of the Pope.  I think it is important to look at this because the claims of the Church are so often misunderstood or misrepresented.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Part IIc): Other Gospel Passages Involving Peter

As I make constant references to past articles in this series, here are the links for your convenience.

• Part I can be found here
• Part IIa can be found here
• Part IIb can be found here

Introduction

Now that we have discussed Matthew 16, there are other considerations from Scripture to look at about Peter.  Some of them show Peter has an important role.  Others we will look at because it they are commonly used by non-Catholics to challenge the belief in Peter being given headship over the Church established by Christ.

As this article is lengthy in itself, it will merely focus on the Gospel passages, especially those which seem to be misinterpreted or misrepresented when it comes to rejecting the Catholic belief.  Article IId will move on to Acts and the Epistles, where, once Christ has ascended, we see how the Church carries on His teachings through Peter.

The reader is reminded that the parts of article II are not independent, but is essentially a large article broken into parts (otherwise, it would be over 10,000 words in length)

Preliminary Remarks

Some readers may notice I am focusing more on authority rather than on infallibility in this article.  This is because infallibility is necessarily linked to authority which will be bound or loosed in Heaven.  If an error is bound or loosed in Heaven, it indicates that God's authority is behind this error.

Keep in mind that the Early Christians saw the Scriptures of the New Testament as authoritative because of the source (the Apostles, or in the case of Mark and Luke, because they were written by those who knew the Apostles).  Paul, Peter, James, Jude, John, Matthew… their writings were accepted as people who had encountered Christ personally and who taught with authority.  Mark was traditionally held to be written by one who knew Peter personally.  Luke was traditionally held to be one who knew Paul personally.

We recognize that these New Testament writings are inspired and inerrant.  However, we forget the fact that they were held to be important because of who was writing them.

So we have a link: The Apostles were believed to be teaching authentically what was handed to them by Jesus, and when they made decisions (the appointment of Matthias and the Council of Jerusalem), nobody questioned their right to do so.

If God Cannot Err, He Cannot Contradict Himself

At any rate, because of the fact that what Peter binds and looses will be bound and loosed in Heaven, we ought to add a ninth syllogism to consider.

Syllogism #9

1. [God] is [inerrant] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [contradictory claims] are [inerrant] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore no [contradictory claims] are from [God] (Therefore no [C] is [A])

Those who disagree with the Catholic understanding of infallibility often argue that since "it doesn't exist, there is no problem," but since we have Jesus' promise directed to Peter, we do have a problem.  Either God protects Peter and his successors from error when teaching or we do have the possibility of God binding and protecting error.  Since we do acknowledge that the Church was protected from error in the case of the canon of Scripture (See article I, syllogism #4), we can see it is not unreasonable for Catholics to believe God protects the Church in other areas in terms of things essential for salvation.

Part I: Do Certain Gospel Verses in Scripture Deny the Primacy of Peter?

(Please note that this article pertains to the Gospels alone.  Passages in Acts (Such as Acts 15) and the Epistles (such as Galatians 2) will come in Article IId.  I haven't overlooked these.  This separation is done to keep these articles from going on too long.)

Did Jesus Revoke His Promise?

So let's look at the allegation that certain passages revoke the promise made to Peter (and a promise was made, to Peter specifically in the second person) in Matthew 16.  I have come across some groups who claim that even if Jesus did make a promise to Peter, Peter's later actions in Scripture show that he lost the rights to this promise.

However, if we accept Syllogism #9, we can't accept this interpretation.  If Jesus, being God (See article IIb Syllogism #8) is inerrant, then for Him to revoke a promise He made would be to contradict Himself.  Was He wrong in making the promise?  Or wrong in revoking it?  Catholics don't believe Christ did revoke His promise to Peter, but those who do claim this need to recognize that a God who does not err does not make promises He is unwilling to keep.

Therefore we need to keep syllogism #9 in mind when looking at the argument against infallibility from Matthew 16:20-23, which reads:

^21 From that time on, Jesus began to show his disciples that he ^must go to Jerusalem and suffer greatly from the elders, the chief priests, and the scribes, and be killed and on the third day be raised.

^{22 }Then Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, “God forbid, Lord! No such thing shall ever happen to you.”

^23 He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are an obstacle to me. You are thinking not as God does, but as human beings do.”

Some have argued that this was a revocation of the promise made to Peter by Jesus (which indicates a promise was indeed made).  However, there are some problems with this.  The first is Syllogism #9 above.  If Jesus made a promise to bind and loose in Heaven what Peter bound and loosed on Earth, then the revocation of this would be a contradiction of this promise.

This is because either Jesus would have erred in making this promise to begin with, or He would have erred in revoking it.  Now, since we accept Jesus is God (See syllogism 8 in Article IIb) and that God cannot err (Syllogism 1 in Article I) it stands to reason that Jesus would not have made the poor judgment of making a promise to Peter and then needing to revoke it.

The second reason is even simpler.  The rebuke makes no mention of a revocation of the promise Christ made.  To claim there was a revocation is simply the insertion of a meaning into the text (eisegesis).  Therefore, these verses cannot be used as evidence to a claim that Christ did so.  The verses simply don't say what people who argue a revocation want them to say.

It seems more probable that the rebuke was over Peter's failure to understand the mission of the Messiah.  The human thinking was of a political messiah who was to right the wrongs in Israel.  God's thinking was of the salvation of the world from their sins.  What sounded horrible to Peter (the crucifixion) was perfectly understandable when one knew God's plan of salvation.

The only way one could try to use this passage against Peter would be if they wanted to claim Peter was making an official Church teaching (which I don't believe is the case).  However, unlike other verses where Peter does make decrees (such as in Acts), in this case, Peter spoke privately with Jesus ("took him aside").  So it seems, again, that this passage does not indicate what certain people claim about it.

Did Peter's Denial Mean The Revocation of Christ's Promise?

That Peter denied Jesus is attested to in all of the Scriptures (see Matt 26:34, Mark 14:30, Luke 22:34, John 13:38).  Peter promised to stay with Jesus even if it meant risking his life.  Jesus foretold that Peter would deny Him.  It turned out that Peter did exactly what Jesus had foretold.

The problem is, to claim that these verses mean Peter lost his right to the promise Peter made is eisegesis, putting a meaning into Scripture which is not present.  Indeed, we see in Luke 22:31-32, that Jesus had something to say to Peter:

^{31 }“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you [second person plural] like wheat,

^32 but I have prayed that your own faith [second person singular] may not fail; and once you [second person singular] have turned back, you [second person singular] must strengthen your [second person singular] brothers.”

Now, remembering Syllogism #9, it follows that either Jesus contradicts Himself (if the promise to Peter is revoked when Peter denies Jesus) or else Jesus, knowing all the disciples would falter, and that when Peter turned back (the Greek indicates turning from doing wrong, repenting), he was to strengthen (establish, make firm) his brothers.

In other words, Peter has an assignment which anticipates his denial.  To strengthen his brethren once he has turned back.

When we get to John 21, we can see that despite Peter's denial, we have a scene with Jesus and Peter which is touching:

^{15 }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.”

^16 He then said to him a second time, “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.”

^17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a 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.

^{18 }Amen, amen, I say to you, when you were younger, you used to dress yourself and go where you wanted; but when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.”

^19 He said this signifying by what kind of death he would glorify God. And when he had said this, he said to him, “Follow me.”

Peter is again given the mission to tend Jesus' lambs and sheep.  Given that we are the sheep of His flock, Peter's mission is one of looking after the flock.  It seems to be a necessary element of this commission that Peter must have authority over this flock.  Otherwise, how could Peter tend the sheep?

So it seems that Peter's personal sins did not take away from the task which God had called him to do.

What About The "Dispute over Authority" Verses?

Others point to the dispute among the Apostles as to who was the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.  They argue that this means that the Apostles were not aware of the primacy of Peter  However, this is to miss the point of these readings.  This was not about authority over the Church on Earth, but over privileges when Christ came into power.  Like Peter in Matthew 16:21-23, they couldn't fully grasp the idea that Christ's kingdom was not a political kingdom on Earth.

The dispute among the Apostles seems to have been set off by James and John and their mother, who asked for a special favor in Matthew 20:

^{20 }Then the mother ^of the sons of Zebedee approached him with her sons and did him homage, wishing to ask him for something.

^21 He said to her, “What do you wish?” She answered him, “Command that these two sons of mine sit, one at your right and the other at your left, in your kingdom.”

^22 Jesus said in reply, “You do not know what you are asking. ^Can you drink the cup that I am going to drink?” They said to him, “We can.”

^23 He replied, “My cup you will indeed drink, but to sit at my right and at my left (, this) is not mine to give but is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.”

^24 When the ten heard this, they became indignant at the two brothers.

^25 But Jesus summoned them and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and the great ones make their authority over them felt.

^26 But it shall not be so among you. Rather, whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant;

^27 whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave.

^28 Just so, the Son of Man did not come to be served but to serve and to give his life as a ransom ^for many.” (See also, Mark 10:35-44)

What we have here is not a denial of authority in the Church, but an insistence on what this authority is for.  James and John wanted special privileges when Jesus came in His glory.  Jesus made clear that the one who would lead would do so as service to the whole, and not as a  position of privilege.  The Catholic Church recognizes this, in one of the titles of the Pope, which is Servant of the Servants of God.  We see the Pope as having a ministry which looks out for the good of the Church in the role of the shepherd, and not as some sort of monarch living off of his subjects.  The fact that some have not lived up to this does not take away from the intent Christ has called those who would shepherd to observe.

Part II:The Relationship of Jesus and Peter in Scripture

The next section is to look at the relation of Christ to Peter in the Gospel accounts.  We have Matthew 16 which gives us the promise, but how did the actions in Scripture show this?  Some may not be too impressed by this section.  However, as I mentioned in Article IIb, we are looking at the Scriptures as data.  How was Peter involved in the ministry of Christ?  Do we see any prominence in Peter's actions among the twelve?

These are all things which make sense when one accepts the claim that Peter was made the head of the Church, but seem somewhat random if one rejects this.

First in the Lists

First we need to notice the prominence of Peter in all the lists of the Apostles.  While in all the lists, ten of them are given in various sequences, Peter is always placed first and Judas is always placed last.  Judas being placed last is pretty obvious.  As the betrayer of Christ, he would not be seen as equal to the others.  Yet Peter is always first.  Not James (which would seem likely if it was James who was head of the Church as some seek to argue).  Nor is it John, the Beloved Disciple.  James and John are considered important of course and play important roles in the Gospels… but are usually mentioned with Peter, with Peter mentioned first.

So the person who would deny the primacy of Peter would need to explain this curious fact, as to why all four Gospels mention Peter first.

Peter the Spokesman

We also need to recognize that when it came to the actions of the Apostles, it was mostly Peter who spoke for the Apostles (See Matt 15:15, 16:23, 18:21, 19:27, Luke 12:41, John 6:68 for example).  Now 18th century Protestant commentator Matthew Henry wrote:

Peter’s temper led him to be forward in speaking upon all such occasions, and sometimes he spoke well, sometimes amiss; in all companies there are found some warm, bold men, to whom a precedency of speech falls of course; Peter was such a one: yet we find other of the apostles sometimes speaking as the mouth of the rest; as John (Mk. 9:38), Thomas, Philip, and Jude, Jn. 14:5, 8, 22.

However, this isn't really the case.  It's inserting meaning which assumes the denial of the primacy of Peter and seeks to justify this assumption.  First, the invocation of Peter's personality is something Henry is putting into Scripture (eisegesis).  Second, the other cases indicate they were speaking for themselves, whereas Peter asks questions like "Do you intend this parable for us…?"

Peter the Second In Command

I always found this section striking from Matthew 17:

^{24 }When they came to Capernaum, the collectors of the temple tax ^approached Peter and said, “Doesn't your teacher pay the temple tax?”

^25 “Yes,” he said. ^When he came into the house, before he had time to speak, Jesus asked him, “What is your opinion, Simon? From whom do the kings of the earth take tolls or census tax? From their subjects or from foreigners?”

^{26 }When he said, “From foreigners,” Jesus said to him, “Then the subjects are exempt.

^27 But that we may not offend them, ^go to the sea, drop in a hook, and take the first fish that comes up. Open its mouth and you will find a coin worth twice the temple tax. Give that to them for me and for you.”

^First of all, the collectors went to Peter, which seems to indicate that there was some purpose to approaching him, instead of Jesus, and instead of one of the others among the twelve.  Second, that Jesus had a miracle pay the tax not just for Jesus, but for Peter too.  However, not for the other eleven.  There seems to be the demonstration of a link between Jesus and Peter not necessarily present with the other eleven.

Now some have claimed it was because it was Peter's house that he was approached.  However, we need to consider something here.  All males 20 and older were obligated to pay the Temple Tax when enrolled in the census, as we see in Exodus 30:

^11 The LORD also said to Moses,

^12 “When you take a census of the Israelites who are to be registered, each one, as he is enrolled, shall give the LORD a forfeit for his life, so that no plague may come upon them for being registered.

^13 Everyone who enters the registered group must pay a half-shekel, according to the standard of the sanctuary shekel, twenty gerahs to the shekel. This payment of a half-shekel is a contribution to the LORD.

^14 Everyone of twenty years or more who enters the registered group must give this contribution to the LORD.

^15 The rich need not give more, nor shall the poor give less, than a half-shekel in this contribution to the LORD to pay the forfeit for their lives.

^16 When you receive this forfeit money from the Israelites, you shall donate it to the service of the meeting tent, that there it may be the Israelites’ reminder before the LORD, of the forfeit paid for their lives.”

So, all the twelve were obligated to pay, and about a month before Passover, there were moneychangers throughout Israel according to some sources who would exchange the foreign coins for the shekel (the tax seems to have been paid at the Temple, but since the shekel was not used for ordinary [civil] transactions (see Matt. 22:19), it appears it was a special coin for religious purposes and transactions [See John 2:15]). 

Jews who were residents and visitors both could make use of the service, so mere residency seems not to apply.  Yet the question was only asked about Jesus, and Jesus provided the coin needed to pay for Him and Peter. Remember, Peter's brother Andrew (Luke 6:14) and his partners in fishing James and John (Luke 5:10) also lived in the area (and thus would fit under the residence question), and some have alleged that it was James, not Peter, who was head of the Church in light of Acts 15.  Yet they did not go to James, a fellow Apostle and partner of Peter in the fishing enterprise.

So, the questions are: If one denies a special role for Peter, then why did the collectors go to Peter with the question?  Why did Jesus include Peter with Himself when it comes to paying the tax but not the other apostles?

Jesus' Visiting Peter after the Resurrection

Another interesting fact was shown in Luke 24:

^33 So they set out at once and returned to Jerusalem where they found gathered together the eleven and those with them

^34 who were saying, “The Lord has truly been raised and has appeared to Simon!”

^35 Then the two recounted what had taken place on the way and how he was made known to them in the breaking of the bread.

While we do not have an account of what Jesus said to Peter, I find it notable that Peter was one of the first (since we do not know whether Jesus appeared to Peter before, after or at the same time He was present with the two disciples) to see the risen Lord.

Taken by itself, perhaps one could shrug it off and say "Who knows what God was thinking?"  However, God does not act randomly, even if we may not be able to comprehend the mind of God.  When we consider what Jesus has said to Peter in Luke 22:31-32, it seems this is not merely a throwaway incident.

It is not enough to argue a possible alternate interpretation.  One could argue a possible alternate explanation with space aliens.  The issue is, on what basis is this alternate explanation held?

Conclusion

Each individual piece, taken in isolation could be given an alternate explanation.  However, when taken as a whole, it becomes much more like obstinacy to deny that Peter had a role given to him by Christ to tend His sheep, and strengthen his brethren.

In the next article (IId), I intend to look at the role of Peter in Acts and in the Epistles.  Jesus has ascended to Heaven.  How does Peter act then?

Hopefully, after IId, I will be done with Peter and Scripture, and ready to move on to what Christ had to say about His Church itself in Article III.