A prominent issue dividing Christians today is the role of Peter, Rome, and the papacy. The difference of opinion arises from Jesus’ words in Matthew 16:

• “[Jesus] said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter replied, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter [Greek petros], and on this rock [Greek petra] I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’” – Matthew 16:15-19

From this passage, the Roman Catholic church teaches these five doctrines:

1. Peter was the rock upon which Jesus founded the church.
2. Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome.
3. The bishop of Rome (the Pope), as a successor of Peter, has authority over other churches and bishops.
4. Every church must agree with the church of Rome.
5. The bishop of Rome (the Pope) is infallible when speaking ex cathedra, that is, when defining a doctrine of the church.

Protestants typically reject all of these points. They usually teach that the “rock” of the church is either Jesus Himself or Peter’s confession of Christ as the Son of God. They also teach that Peter was never in Rome (because Scripture makes no mention of it) and that the authoritarian claims of the Pope are invalid. Both sides may be surprised to learn what the early Christians believed about each of these points.

Question #1: Was Peter the rock upon which Jesus founded the church?

Contrary to the teachings of many Protestants, the early Christians believed exactly what Jesus said – that Peter (whose name means rock) was the rock on which the church would be built:

• “The blessed Peter was the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute.” – Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
• “What man of sound mind can possibly suppose that these men were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord ordained to be teachers? . . . Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called the rock on which the church should be built, who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19] with the power of loosing and binding in heaven and on earth? Was anything, again, concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple?” – Tertullian (c. 197)
• “From what source do you usurp this right to ‘the church’? Is it because the Lord has said to Peter, ‘Upon this rock I will build My church’ [Matt. 16:18] and ‘To you have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom’ [Matt. 16:19]? Or ‘Whatever you will have bound or loosed in earth will be bound or loosed in the heavens’ [Matt. 16:19]? You presume that the power of binding and loosing has come down to you – that is, to every church of Peter. What sort of man are you! You subvert and completely change the clear intention of the Lord. For He conferred this power personally upon Peter. . . . This would mean that in Peter himself the church was reared.” – Tertullian (c. 212)
• “Peter [is the one] on whom the church of Christ is built, against which the gates of Hades will not prevail.” – Origen (c. 228)
• “Peter, on whom the church was to be built, taught . . . that the church will not depart from Christ.” – Cyprian (c. 250)

Roman Catholics frequently refer to these five quotations but fail to include others from the same writers. While the early Christians granted Peter a prominent position in the church, they also taught (1) that the supreme Rock is Jesus Christ and (2) that every disciple of Christ is a rock:

• “Jesus changes the name of Simon to Peter. . . . But why to Peter? If it was because of the vigor of his faith, there were many solid materials that might lend a name from their strength. Was it because Christ was both a rock and a stone? For we read of His being placed ‘as a stone of stumbling and as a rock of offense’ [1 Pet. 2:8].” – Tertullian (c. 207)
• “Even though the floods of the nations and the vain superstitions of heretics should revolt against their true faith, they are overcome . . . because Christ is the Rock by which, and on which, the Church is founded.” – Victorinus (c. 280)
• “If we, too, have said like Peter, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ [Matt. 16:16] – not as if flesh and blood had revealed it to us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart – we become a Peter. So to us there might be said by the Word, ‘You are Peter, etc.’ For every disciple of Christ is a rock. . . . And upon every such rock is built every word of the church and the polity in accordance with it. For in each of the perfect – who have the combination of words, deeds, and thoughts that fill up the blessedness – the church is built by God.” – Origen (c. 245)
• “But if you suppose that upon only that one Peter the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or about each one of the apostles? Shall we dare to say that the gates of Hades will not prevail against Peter in particular, but that they will prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades will not prevail against it’ [Matt. 16:18], apply in regard to all? . . . Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will none other of the blessed receive them?” – Origen (c. 245)
• “In this place [Matt. 16:18-19], these words seem to be addressed to only Peter – ‘Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.’ However, in the Gospel of John, the Savior gave the Holy Spirit to the disciples by breathing upon them and said, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit, etc.’ [John 20:22]. Many then will say to the Savior, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God’ [Matt. 16:16]. . . . And if anyone says this to Him . . . through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the language of the gospel to Peter. . . . For all who are the imitators of Christ bear the surname of ‘rock.’ . . . Furthermore, as members of Christ, they derive their surname from Him, being called ‘Christians.’ And from the rock, they are called ‘Peters.’” – Origen (c. 245)

Cyprian offers insight as to why Jesus gave authority first to Peter and then to the rest of the apostles after His resurrection:

• “The Lord spoke to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto you, “You are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church”’ [Matt. 16:18]. . . . And again, to the same apostle He says after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]. And after His resurrection, He gave an equal power to all the apostles, saying, ‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you. Receive the Holy Spirit. Anyone’s sins you forgive, they will be forgiven unto him. And anyone’s sins you retain, they will be retained’ [John 20:22-23]. Yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one apostle. Assuredly, the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter – endowed with a like partnership, both of honor and power. Still, the beginning proceeds from unity. In the Song of Songs, in the person of our Lord, the Holy Spirit designated this as being one church, saying, ‘My dove, my spotless one, is but one’ [Song of Sol. 6:9].” – Cyprian (c. 250)

Question #2a: Was Peter ever in Rome?

Many Protestants claim that Peter was never in Rome. However, the early Christians recounted that Peter preached at Rome and joined Paul in founding its church:

• “Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)
• “The universally known church was founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)
• “Mark was the follower of Peter, when Peter publicly preached the gospel at Rome before some of Caesar’s equestrian knights.” – Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
• “Peter and Paul preached at Rome.” – Lactantius (c. 304-313)

Peter and Paul were both martyred at Rome:

• “Through envy and jealously, the greatest and most righteous pillars have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labors; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, he departed to the place of glory due to him.” – Clement of Rome (c. 96)
• “Since, moreover, you are close to Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands [in Carthage] the very authority [of the apostles]. How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! Here is where Peter endured a passion like his Lord’s. Here is where Paul won his crown in a death like John’s. Here is where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil. From there, he was sent to his island of exile. See what she has learned, what she has taught, and what fellowship she has had with even churches in Africa.” – Tertullian (c. 197)
• “Peter, the first of the apostles, was often arrested, thrown into prison, and treated with dishonor. He was finally crucified at Rome.” – Peter of Alexandria (c. 310)
• “While Nero reigned, the apostle Peter came to Rome. Through the power of God committed to him, he worked certain miracles. And by turning many to the true religion, he built up a faithful and steadfast temple unto the Lord. . . . It was Nero who first persecuted the servants of God. He crucified Peter and slew Paul.” – Lactantius (c. 320)

Furthermore, Peter likely wrote his epistles while in Rome. In 1 Peter 5:13, he indicates that he was in Babylon, which the early Christians generally understood to refer to Rome:

• “In the writings of our John, Babylon is a figure of the city of Rome. For Rome is like Babylon in being great and proud in royal power and in warring against the saints of God.” – Tertullian (c. 207)
• “Tell me, blessed John – apostle and disciple of the Lord – what did you see and hear concerning Babylon? Arise and speak! For it [i.e. Rome] sent you into banishment.” – Hippolytus (c. 200)
• “. . . the great overthrow of Babylon, that is, the Roman state.” – Victorinus (c. 280)

Question #2b: Was Peter the first bishop of Rome?

The question of whether Peter was the first bishop at Rome is more difficult to answer. Irenaeus, writing at the end of the second century, says that Peter and Paul founded and built the church of Rome and then appointed Linus bishop. Irenaeus does not say that Peter was its first bishop, but neither does he imply the opposite:

• “The blessed apostles, then, founded and built up the church [in Rome]. They committed the office of bishop into the hands of Linus. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus. After him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the office of bishop.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)

Nearly 150 years later, church historian Eusebius recounted that Peter “presided over” the church at Rome, which, again, may or may not indicate that he served in the official role of bishop:

• “Peter, . . . having first founded the church at Antioch, went away to Rome, preaching the Gospel; and, after the church in Antioch, he also presided over that of Rome until his death.” – Eusebius (c. 325)

Roman Catholic tradition says that Peter did indeed serve in the office of bishop. However, while he obviously co-founded the church and led it during its early years, there is little evidence to prove that Peter was its first bishop or to prove conclusively that he was not. However, some scholars have noted from Christian literature a striking absence of the office of bishop during the first and early second centuries. Robert Eno, former professor of church history at the Catholic University of America, writes the following in his book The Rise of the Papacy:

• “If Rome’s position is closely tied to the importance of its bishop, what would be the result of the discovery that there was a time when it did not have a bishop? . . . [I refer] to the possibility that in the late first and early second centuries the ministerial offices of the local church at Rome had not yet attained the distinction and clarity seen in the letters of Ignatius of Antioch. In other words, the leadership role in the local church of Rome was still being exercised collectively before the emergence of a monarchical bishop in Rome. . . . The evidence available seems to point predominantly if not decisively in the direction of a collective leadership. . . .
• “[Ignatius’ letter to the Romans] is interesting because, unlike all the other letters, it contains no ecclesiological doctrine about the importance of the bishop. . . . He does not greet a bishop in Rome nor does he ever mention such a person in this letter. . . . We have only silence, which leads many to conclude that Ignatius did not address such a person because the Roman community of the time had no such leader.
• “The two other documents of relevance are of Roman origin themselves. First is the longest and probably the most unusual of the Apostolic Fathers, the Shepherd of Hermas. . . . What is of interest here are the incidental remarks which mention the leaders of the Christian community in Rome. These leaders are usually referred to by such vague titles as ‘the leaders.’ Sometimes they are called elders as ‘the elders who are in charge of the Church.’ It is significant to note that these references are all in the plural. . . .
• “Hermas claimed to be a lay member of the community. On the other hand, Clement is a member of the leadership group, indeed by common traditional estimation, the fourth Pope and the third bishop after Peter. . . . [In the epistle of 1 Clement,] neither Clement nor anyone else appears in a position anything like that of the bishop as described by Ignatius. Not surprisingly, given the purpose of the letter (to rebuke the Corinthian Christians for rebelling against their presbyters), there are several references to the leaders of the Church in Corinth, the presbyters. No indication is given of any different leadership pattern in the Roman church itself. The abstract term episkope is used in conjunction with the presbyters. Once again the picture given seems to point to the leadership being exercised by a collectivity. . . .
• “A new and important study by Peter Lampe draws the picture of the early Roman community divided into a number of smaller house churches scattered throughout the city and its environs, each presided over by a presbyter (or perhaps more than one). There was really no united and coordinated Church leadership . . . within the city’s Christian community as a whole. . . . One presbyter, e.g., Clement as specifically mentioned in the Shepherd of Hermas, was charged with corresponding with other Christian communities and probably with dispensing the apparently not inconsiderable aid sent to communities in need. Clement and other such ‘foreign ministers’ of the Roman Church were not monarchical bishops, but the presbyters holding such a position would necessarily stand out.
• “This evidence (Clement, Hermas, Ignatius) points us in the direction of assuming that in the first century and into the second, there was no bishop of Rome in the usual sense given to that title. The office of the single mon-episkopos was slowly emerging in the local Christian communities around the Mediterranean world. Men like Ignatius were strongly urging this development. But the evidence seems to indicate that in the earliest decades, this evolution had not yet been accomplished in Rome. . . . If there were no bishop of Rome, in what sense can one speak of a Petrine succession?”

Question #3a: Did Peter have primacy (authority) over the other apostles?

Several of the early Christians wrote that Peter was the leader or chief of the apostles, on account of Jesus’ declaration in Matthew 16:

• “The blessed Peter was the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples for whom alone and himself the Savior paid tribute.” – Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
• “Peter himself was the leader and chief of the apostles.” – Treatise on Re-Baptism (c. 257)
• “Peter, the first of the apostles, was often arrested, thrown into prison, and treated with dishonor. He was finally crucified at Rome.” – Peter of Alexandria (c. 310)

However, the early Christians indicate that while Peter was the first of the apostles positionally, he did not claim special privileges or assert authority over them:

• “[Clement of Alexandria] says that Peter, James, and John (after the Savior’s ascension), although preeminently honored by the Lord, did not contend for glory. Rather, they appointed James the Just as bishop of Jerusalem.” – Eusebius, citing Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
• “To James the Just, John, and Peter, the Lord imparted knowledge after His resurrection. These imparted it to the rest of the apostles. And the rest of the apostles imparted it to the Seventy, of whom Barnabas was one.” – Eusebius, citing Clement of Alexandria (c. 195)
• “Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” – Cyprian (c. 250)

The early Christians believed that, in Jesus’ kingdom, people in authority were the first among equals. That is, positions of authority were opportunities – not to assert primacy – but to serve, as Jesus said: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave” (Matthew 20:25-27).

In obedience to Jesus’ teachings, Peter chose to serve in humility rather than assert authority as the “first” of the apostles. In the New Testament, it was James who led the church at Jerusalem and presided over the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15), Paul who preached the gospel to the Gentiles and wrote the majority of the New Testament epistles, and John who received the vision of Revelation. When Paul went to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles regarding the gospel he was preaching, he did not say that Peter held authority over the others. Rather, he said that James, Peter, and John (in that order) “seemed to be pillars” (Galatians 2:9). Compared to Paul, Peter’s role in the events of the New Testament was minor, and his name is hardly mentioned after the events of Acts 1-12.

Question #3b: Does the bishop of Rome have primacy over other churches and bishops?

Many of the early Christian writers were themselves bishops – including Clement of Rome (Rome), Ignatius (Antioch), Polycarp (Smyrna), Irenaeus (Lyons), and Cyprian (Carthage). Yet, like Peter, they followed Jesus’ instructions and realized that their positions of authority came with a great expectation of humility and service:

• “I do not issue orders to you, as though I were some great person. . . . For now I begin to be a disciple, and I speak to you as fellow disciples with me.” – Ignatius (c. 105)
• “I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles.” – Ignatius (c. 105)
• “We . . . do not impose a law upon anyone. For each prelate has in the administration of the church the exercise of his free will, for he will give an account of his conduct to the Lord.” – Cyprian (c. 250)
• “It remains that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think – judging no man. Nor should we reject anyone from the right of communion if he should think differently from us. For none of us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops. Nor by tyrannical terror does anyone compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience. For every bishop – according to the allowance of his liberty and power – has his own proper right of judgment. He can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. Rather, let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ.” – Cyprian (c. 256)

However, during the first few centuries of Christianity, bishops began to forget their responsibilities as the first among equals, gravitating towards more power and authority. Today, the Catholic Catechism, paragraph 882, states: “The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, ‘is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.’ ‘For the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.’”

Such an authoritarian statement seems entirely foreign when compared with Jesus’ teachings about servanthood, Peter’s humility and deference to others, and the early Christians’ understanding of authority figures as the first among equals.

Question #4: Should every church agree with the church of Rome?

Rome held a prominent place both in the secular world and in Christianity. With a population of nearly 500,000 people, Rome was not only the capital and largest city of the Roman Empire, but it was also called caput mundi, or the capital of the world. The apostles Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and were eventually martyred there, and John was sent into exile from the city. Within 30-40 years after the death of Christ, Rome had already become known for their steadfast faith, as Paul wrote: “I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world” (Romans 1:8).

As alluded to in an earlier quotation from The Rise of the Papacy, each major city in early Christianity had multiple house churches, which were presided over by either a single presbyter or a group of leaders. However, in the first few centuries of Christianity, bishops of larger cities (most notably Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople) began clamoring for jurisdiction over smaller cities, eventually creating a hierarchical structure. In AD 381, the First Council of Constantinople gave Rome the position of supreme authority in the church; and the First Vatican Council of 1870 reaffirmed that “the Roman church holds the preeminence of ordinary power over all the other churches.”

To support the idea of Roman primacy, Catholic scholars typically reference a phrase from Irenaeus. Here is the quotation in its entirety:

• “Since, however, it would be very tedious in such a volume as this to reckon up the successions of all the churches, we put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner (whether by an evil self-pleasing by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion), assemble in unauthorized meetings. [We do this] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul. We do this also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the succession of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere. For the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the epistles to Timothy. . . . And this is the most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)

Roman Catholics typically reference Irenaeus’ statement that “every church should agree with this church.” However, the paragraph continues. Why should every church agree with the church of Rome? According to Irenaeus, the reason is that “the apostolic tradition has been preserved” by the leaders of the church at Rome. As of AD 180, they were still faithfully teaching the doctrines of the apostles. Irenaeus was in no way saying that every church should agree with Rome regardless of what they teach. Rather, he was saying that every church should agree with the apostolic doctrine that was at that time taught in the churches, including Rome:

• “We hold communion with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.” – Tertullian (c. 197)
• “There are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ. However, some of these men think differently than their predecessors. Therefore, that alone is to be accepted as the truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition. For the teaching of the church . . . remains in the churches to the present day and is still preserved.” – Origen (c. 225)
• “Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind [i.e. a list of episcopal succession back to the apostles]. . . . However, even if they were to produce such a contrivance, they will not advance even one step. For when their very doctrine is compared with that of the apostles, its own diversity and discrepancy proves that it had neither an apostle nor an apostolic man for its authorship. . . . The heretics will be put to this test by those churches, who, although they do not have as their founder the apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for churches are in fact being founded daily), yet since they agree in the same faith, they are considered to be no less apostolic because they are alike in doctrine. Therefore, let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests [i.e. episcopal succession and apostolic doctrine] by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they consider themselves to be apostolic. . . . For the heretics are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith.” – Tertullian (c. 197)

The early Christians believed that the apostolic faith was “once for all handed down to the saints” (Jude 3 NASB) and cannot be changed. Church leaders were not to teach the doctrines of a particular church; rather, they were to faithfully teach the truths of Scripture without changing anything:

• “In the Lord’s apostles, we possess our authority. For even they did not of themselves choose to introduce anything [new], but faithfully delivered to the nations the teaching that they had received from Christ. If, therefore, even ‘an angel from heaven should preach any other gospel’ [Gal. 1:18] than theirs, he would be called accursed by us.” – Tertullian (c. 197)
• “Although dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, the church has received this faith from the apostles and their disciples. . . . Although she is scattered throughout the whole world, yet she carefully preserves it, as if she occupied only one house. She also believes these points just as if she had only one soul, and one and the same heart. She proclaims these things, teaches them, and hands them down with perfect harmony.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)
• “From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the apostles to preach, no others should be received as preachers [i.e. founding teachers] than those whom Christ appointed. For ‘no man knows the Father except the Son, and he to whomever the Son will reveal Him’ [Matt. 11:27]. Nor does the Son seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth to preach.” – Tertullian (c. 197)
• “We must not at all depart from the evangelical precepts. Disciples should observe and do the same things that the Master both taught and did. . . . So then, neither the apostle himself nor an angel from heaven can preach or teach anything other than what Christ has once taught and that His apostles have announced.” – Cyprian (c. 250)
• “Those who seek to set up any new dogma have the habit of very readily perverting into conformity with their own notions any proofs they care to take from the Scriptures. . . . The apostolic word marks out the case in these words: ‘If anyone preaches any other gospel to you other than that which you have received, let him be accursed’ [Gal. 1:18]. Consequently, in addition to what has been once committed to us by the apostles, a disciple of Christ should receive nothing new as doctrine.” – Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (c. 320)

Around AD 155, a disagreement arose between Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, providing insight into how the early Christians viewed the church of Rome and its bishop. Traditionally, Christians had observed Easter on the 14^th day of the first month (Nisan 14), regardless of the day of the week. However, in the second century, the churches in Rome and surrounding areas began to observe Easter on the first Sunday after the first full moon after the spring equinox (which was typically the first Sunday after Nisan 14). Rome was a prominent cultural and trading center, and perhaps this change was made to accommodate the schedule of the working class. The churches in Jerusalem and Asia Minor, including Polycarp’s church at Smyrna, continued to observe Easter as it was traditionally done. According to Irenaeus, Polycarp discussed the issue with Anicetus, bishop of Rome, around AD 155:

• “When the blessed Polycarp was visiting in Rome in the time of Anicetus, . . . they were at once well inclined towards each other, not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this matter. Anicetus could not persuade Polycarp to forego the observance, for these things had always been observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant. Nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for Anicetus maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs, they held fellowship with each other.” – Irenaeus (c. 180)

Several observations can be made from this account: (1) If Anicetus, as a successor of Peter, held the primacy over other bishops, surely Polycarp would have submitted to his authority. (2) If every church was required to agree with the church of Rome, surely Anicetus would have forced Polycarp to change his practice. (3) Polycarp followed the custom that was handed down by John, whereas Anicetus could point only to the tradition of his church’s presbyters. (4) The two bishops met, discussed, and parted as equals. (5) Neither church changed its practice.

Such an account is remarkably different from the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, as seen in the Vatican II document Lumen gentium: “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff [the Pope], the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power.”

Question #5: Is the Pope infallible when speaking ex cathedra?

The Catholic Catechism, paragraphs 889-892, state the following: “In order to preserve the Church in the purity of the faith handed on by the apostles, Christ who is the Truth willed to confer on her a share in his own infallibility. . . . Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals. . . . ‘The Roman Pontiff, head of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful – who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals.’ . . . This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.”

According to the Roman Catholic church, the pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra, that is, when he defines a doctrine of the church. The teachings of bishops and ecumenical councils can be considered infallible if certain conditions are met. Papal infallibility was stated as an official dogma of the church at the First Vatican Council of 1869-1870. The Pope has spoken ex cathedra only twice in the history of the Catholic church: In 1854, Pope Pius IX defined the Immaculate Conception of Mary; and in 1950, Pope Pius XII defined the Assumption of Mary. Interestingly, neither Marian dogma was taught in Scripture or in the early church for several hundred years, yet the Roman Catholic church claims that both teachings are infallible.

The New Testament never presents Peter as being infallible in any way. In fact, Scripture records his sin of denying Christ (Matthew 26:33-35) and Paul’s public confrontation of his hypocrisy (Galatians 2:11-14).

Neither the New Testament nor the early Christians ever applied the guarantee of infallibility to a bishop or church leader, much less to the bishop of Rome. In fact, within two hundred years, the church at Rome began to be known for its pride and moral laxity, and leaders of other churches began writing – not in submission to the church at Rome – but to correct its errors. Hippolytus, a presbyter at Rome during the early 200s, was not afraid to point out some of the church’s faults and at one point referred to the bishop as “the impostor”:

• “At that time, Zephyrinus [bishop of Rome] imagined that he administered the affairs of the church. He was an uninformed and shamefully corrupt man. He, being persuaded by proffered gain, was accustomed to connive at those who were present for the purpose of becoming disciples of Cleomenes [a heretical teacher]. But after a while, he himself was enticed away. So he hurried headlong into the same opinions. And he had Callistus as his adviser and a fellow champion of these wicked tenets. . . . During their oversight, the school of these heretics continued to acquire strength and augmentation from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus [bishops of Rome] helped them to prevail. Never at any time, however, have I been guilty of collusion with them. Instead, I have frequently opposed them, refuted them, and have forced them reluctantly to acknowledge the truth. . . . The imposter [Callistus, bishop of Rome], having ventured on such opinions, established a school in antagonism to the church. . . . And he first invented the device of conniving with men in regard to their indulgence in pleasures, saying he could forgive the sins of everyone. For if anyone commits any transgression, they say the sin is not counted unto him – provided only he hurries off to the school of Callistus. . . . [He also] propounded the opinion that if a bishop were guilty of any sin – even a sin unto death – he should not be deposed [removed from office]. About the time of this man, bishops, presbyters, and deacons who had been twice married – even thrice married – began to retain their place among the clergy.” – Hippolytus (c. 225)

Around AD 250, a major controversy arose with the church of Rome over the issue of whether to rebaptize converts who had previously been baptized by heretics. Many churches maintained that baptism by heretics was not valid; therefore, converts should be rebaptized. However, the church of Rome, under the leadership of bishop Stephen, decided to accept the baptism performed by heretics and simply lay hands on them to receive the Holy Spirit. (Incidentally, the difference of opinion indicates that churches were not required to agree with the church at Rome.)

Cyprian, bishop of Carthage, North Africa, wrote letters in criticism of Stephen. Far from revering Stephen’s decision as infallible, Cyprian argued that baptism by heretics was invalid and that Stephen’s practice was contrary to apostolic teaching:

• “You will more and more observe [Stephen’s] error in endeavoring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians. . . . For he judged the baptism of all heretics to be lawful. . . . Where do we find this practice descending from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel? Or where do we find it among the commandments and the epistles of the apostles? . . . What presumption there is to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance! How can we not see that God is indignant and angry every time a human tradition relaxes the divine commandments and passes them by? . . . It happens by a love of presumption and of obstinacy that a man would rather maintain his own evil and false position than to agree in the right and true position that belongs to another. Foreseeing this, the blessed apostle Paul wrote to Timothy and warned him that a bishop must not be ‘quarrelsome or contentious, but gentle and teachable’ [2 Tim. 2:24]. . . . For it is fitting for a bishop not only to teach, but to learn.” – Cyprian (c. 250)

Stephen responded, for one of the first times in church history, by asserting the authority of the Roman church and his authority as a successor of Peter. In response, many churches conceded and conformed their practices to Stephen’s demands. However, Firmillian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, joined Cyprian in calling attention to Rome’s abuse of power:

• “Those who are at Rome do not always observe those things that were handed down from the beginning. Yet they vainly pretend the authority of the apostles. Anyone may know also . . . that there are some diversities. . . . Similarly, in very many other provinces, many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names. Nevertheless, there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the catholic [universal] church on this account – such as Stephen has dared to make.” – Firmillian (c. 256)
• “I am justly indignant at this open and manifest folly of Stephen. He boasts of the place of his episcopate and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the church were laid. Yet he introduces many other rocks and establishes the new buildings of many [heretical] churches! . . . He does not understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed – and, in some measure, abolished – by him when he betrays and deserts unity in this manner. . . . Stephen, who declares that he holds the chair of Peter by succession, is not stirred with zeal against heretics. For he concedes to them . . . the very greatest power of grace [baptism].” – Firmillian (c. 256)
• “Peter – whom the Lord chose first and upon whom He built His church – did not insolently claim anything to himself. Nor did he arrogantly assume anything when Paul later disputed with him about circumcision. He did not say that he held the primacy and that he needed to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” – Cyprian (c. 250)

Conclusion

In summary, the early Christians believed Jesus’ words that Peter was the rock upon which the church was built; however, they taught that every believer is a rock and is subject to the supreme Rock, Jesus Christ. While Peter joined Paul in founding the church at Rome, it is unclear whether or not he served as its first bishop. Jesus taught that His followers were to view positions of authority as opportunities to serve other rather than to assert their authority, and Peter and the other leaders of the early church followed this teaching carefully. However, within a couple centuries, the bishops of Rome began to assert authority over other churches, demanding that others follow their practices. Far from viewing the church of Rome as infallible, many of the early Christians strongly opposed the church’s abuse of power and heretical teachings.