The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter

Berean Beacon on The Papal Claim to Have the Keys of the Apostle Peter:
http://www.bereanbeacon.org/articles/sorted/01_On_Catholicism/The_Claim_and_Boast_to_have_the_Keys_of_the_Apostle_Peter.pdf

---

"The Petrine primacy of the Pope is an historic holdover from the false Decretals of Con-
stantine and Isidore."

For reference here are links describing the documents Mr Bennett mentions (for more details follow the references of these articles):

The False Decretals of Isidore:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm

Donation of Constantine:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

So, Mr Bennett believes the papacy began with Constantine. But that is simply not true.

Here's a refutation of this argument:
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/ConstantinePaganChristian.htm

Another:
http://seanhyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/06/why-do-some-anti-catholic-groups-say-that-constantine-was-the-first-pope-and-that-he-founded-the-catholic-church-at-the-council-of-nicaea-in-325-ad/

Another:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_constantine_invent_catholicism.htm
---

Presupposition 1: The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the “rock” of his
Church, i.e. foundation of His Church.

Yes, Peter was the "rock" on whom Christ built His Church. The foundation of the Church is the Apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. Peter is the prime Apostle. Christ handed Peter the Keys of the Kingdom. Their meaning is not so limited as Mr Bennett believes. Primarily, it means Peter was given the authority to speak and command in the name of the king (Isa 22:20,...) (Mr Bennett seems to be eschewing the Old Testament when he interprets Matthew.) The King is Jesus, the heir of David, and is presently enthroned in Heaven. Therefore, Peter wielded the power to rule in Jesus' place (as His vicar) after He ascended to heaven.  The keys also represent dynastic succession.  In the Davidic dynasty (Jesus is heir to the Davidic throne) the office of the king's vicar was always refilled when vacated. Therefore, Peter's office was filled upon his departure. Hence we have a succession of his office to this day.

This event was a covenant moment. God often changes the name of a man with whom He makes a covenant and God provides a promise in that covenant. Here, Jesus changes Simon's name and tells Simon He (Jesus) will build His Church upon him (as leader) and the "gates of hell" will not prevail against it. This covenant promise was fulfilled after Jesus' Ascension when Peter and the Apostles commenced to spread the Gospel and grow the Kingdom.

It's not just Catholics who take this "Catholic" view. This article quotes numerous non-Catholic scholars who promote it: "St. Peter, the Rock, the Keys, and the Primacy of Rome in the Early Church"  http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/PeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm

Other references:

Peter in Patristic Thought:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

Scott Hahn speaks on Scriptural basis:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html

Catholic Encyclopedia "St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles":
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

The Primacy of Peter:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Jesus, Peter, and the Keys: James White's Objections Answered :
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num41.htm

Little Rock Big Rock:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/pope_peter_rock.htm

---

Presupposition 2: That Peter went to Rome and was the first bishop in Rome

Indeed he did. And Scripture implies Peter was in Rome...

1 Peter 5:12-13
    "I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son. "

Babylon here is a codeword for Rome... "the chosen one" refers to the church there, so Peter must have been writing from there...


And there is a plethora of extra-Scriptural evidence supporting it, as described by the
following links.

Was Peter in Rome?:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

Peter's Presence in Rome:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rome.htm

Bishop of Rome:
http://www.catholicapologetics.org/ap050400.htm

Did Peter die in Rome?:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/did_peter_die_in_rome.htm

---

Presupposition 3: That Peter’s successors are the bishops of Rome under the primacy of
the Pope

First of all, "Apostolic Succession" does not mean transmission of the all the attributes of the Christ-appointed office of the the original Apostles.  There is only one set of divinely
inspired Apostles and the visible, heirarchical aspect of the church was built on them. Those Apostles were inspired but their successors are not. But the teaching and sheparding authority aspects of the Apostolic office ("bishopric" as the KJV puts it) are indeed handed down to men in order to lead subsequent generations of Christians to the fullness of the Gospel. Peter's office as leader of the Apostles and the king's prime minister was refilled after he vacated it. The popes are his successors and possess the authority of the king's prime minister, even if they are not inspired as was the original occupant of the office.

Mr Bennett asserts "In Scripture there is no mention of successors to Peter or the Apostles."

He is wrong concerning the Apostles. For example, (Acts 1:15-26) the assignment of Matthias to fill the office of Judas at the Council of Jerusalem. The concept of successor-ship of the offices of the Apostles (ministers to the King, particularly the prime minister to the King) is implicit in Scripture. When Scripture is interpreted in context, particularly in the context of the dynastic character of the Davidic kingdom, one can see plainly that the Apostolic office was meant to be filled whenever vacated, and he is called a bishop (Acts 1:20 - "his bishopric let another take"). This succession extends to expanding the Kingdom also. As churches (aka congregations of the One Church, or dioceses in modern parlance) are started in various places a new bishop is ordained to lead that church and the number of bishops of the Church increases with the expansion of the kingdom.


Apostolic (and Papal) Succession:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Apostolic Authority and Succession:
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

Church Fathers on Apostolic Succession:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/success.htm

The Church Fathers on Peter's Successors:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp


---

Concluding Paragraphs

"The concept of the bishop of Rome as a successor of Peter was not seriously held until the fourth century. "

Mr Bennett is just plain wrong. Refer to the links referenced under Presupposition 3.

"Scriptures proclaim that the one supreme sovereign head of the Church is the all holy,
unchangeable, all-powerful, all knowing, all wise Lord Jesus Christ."

Mr Bennett is 100% correct in that statement. And he continues:

"The Roman Catholic Church proclaims that the reigning Pontiff, “as pastor of the  entire
Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”"

This is a perfectly reasonable and Scriptural thing, because Christ assigned the first pope, delegating His authority to Peter, and provided a means of maintaining through time that visible Universal Shepard to lead people to Christ.  As Peter had plenary authority after Christ ascended to heaven, so Peter's successors have that same authority to shepard and teach and guard God's family on Earth.

Refer to Scott Hahn on the papacy:
http://zuserver2.star.ucl.ac.uk/~vgg/rc/aplgtc/hahn/m4/pp.html


---

More references:


"The Primacy of Peter, the Papacy and Apostolic Succession":
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a87.htm


"Apostolicity":
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01648b.htm