|
WAS PETER
EVER POPE? By George R. McFaul
The
Roman Catholic Church claims that Christ gave to Peter supremacy over the other
apostles, that the authority given to Peter passed to his successors, that the
sole inheritors of Peter are the Bishops of Rome. She affirms Peter founded the
Church of Rome and was its Bishop for twenty-five years. Butler’s Catholic catechism, pages 15 sand
16, contains the following: “Who is the visible head of the Church?” “The Pope,
who is Christ’s vicar on earth and supreme and visible head of the Church.” “To
whom does the Pope succeed as visible head of the Church?” “To St. Peter, who
was the chief of the apostles, Christ’s vicar on earth, the first Pope and
Bishop of Rome.”
Was Peter ever bishop of Rome? This question is most important to the
Roman Catholic Church, for with it either stands or falls the whole papal
system. If Peter was not Pope at Rome
then the Popes were never his successors.
A brief study of the New Testament will at once
furnish to any candid-minded person convincing proof that Peter was never Pope.
It will readily be seen that CHRIST REFUSED TO RECOGNIZE ANY POPE AMONG HIS
DISCIPLES.
The Savior never introduced Peter to the other
disciples by saying: “See, I have appointed Peter as My successor; receive him
as your Pope and head of the Church, call him Holy Father, honor and obey him.”
On the contrary, Jesus made the following posi-tive declaration, which is
diametrically opposed to Roman teaching: “But be ye not called Rabbi: for one
is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your
father upon the earth for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye
called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. But he that is greatest
among you shall be your servant. And whosoever shall exalt himself shall be
abased; and he that will humble himself shall be exalted” (Matthew 23:8-12).
THE APOSTLES NEVER ACKNOWLEDGED PETER AS POPE
Paul
is silent about Peter’s primacy. He wrote some thirteen or fourteen epistles,
and never once refered to Peter’s authority over the others. If such authority
had existed would he not have spoken of it?
Paul considered himself Peter’s equal. He says: “I
was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles” (II Corinthians 11:5). If
Peter had been Pope would he have dared speak after this fashion?
Paul censured Peter openly. He says: “When Peter was
come to Antioch,
I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.” See Galatians
2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to
practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been
Pope?
Peter was considered only as one of the pillars of
the Church. See Galatians 2:8-10. He was like James and John, one of the
pillars of the church, not its head.
No writer of the New Testament speaks of Peter as
Pope. What does their silence mean? Can it be a conspiracy against him? Why do
they ignore his authority? Why? Because Peter never was Pope. All the apostles
were brethren.
PETER NEVER SPOKE OR ACTED AS
POPE
The
only time that Peter acted at all like a Pope was when he used the sword and
cut off the ear of Malchus (John 18:10). Popes have often made much use of
arms; when at Antioch
he did not walk according to the truth, (Galatians 2:14). Popes have done the same thing for centuries;
when he contradicted and opposed the teachings of Christ, (Matthew
16:21-23). In this respect all the Popes
have excelled. This was all the popery Peter had in him. It was enough, but Christ
delivered him from the power of the evil one.
Peter was sent to preach by others. “Now when the
apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the
Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John” (Acts 8:14). This does not
seem Pope-like. In place of sending others to preach, Peter is sent out
himself.
Peter did not preside at the Council in Jerusalem. He did not
call the Council nor open its deliberations. James took the direction of the
gathering. If Peter had been Pope why did he not show his authority? See Acts
15.
Peter refused to have Cornelius kneel before him. “As
Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet and
worshipped him. But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up: I myself also am a
man” (Acts 10: 25-26). How different from the Popes who compel men to kneel
before them!
Peter did not profess to have power to forgive sins,
but the Popes pretend they have power to forgive sins. Peter told Simon to pray
to God for pardon. “Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if
perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee” (Acts 8:22).
Peter speaks of himself simply as an elder or pastor.
“Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia,
Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia”
(I Peter 1:1). “The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder,
and a witness of the suffering of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that
shall be revealed; feed the flock of God that is among you, taking the
oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but
of a ready mind; neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being
ensamples to the flock” (I Peter 5:1-3).
Peter is completely silent about his position as
Pope. He preached the Gospel on the day of Pentecost and exhorted the people to
repent of their sins, to believe in Jesus and be baptized, but he was silent
about his great power and high position. Was he too modest, or did he not know
that he had been elected Pope? He wrote two epistles, but never mentioned his
office of Pope. Who of the Roman Popes acted like Peter?
Peter never celebrated mass, nor did he hear
confessions; he never directed a soul to pray to Mary nor to the saints, nor to
use beads; he never advocated the use of holy water, and scapulars, and old
bones; he never ordered the people to abstain from meat an Fridays and during
Lent; he never declared that priests and nuns should not marry; he never
presented his foot to be kissed; he never lived in a palace with soldiers to
guard him and hundreds of servants to supply his every want. Why did he not do
these things? Because he never was Pope!
PETER WAS A MARRIED MAN
In
the “Question Box” of the Catholic Register of Toronto, Canada,
appeared the following: “I hear it said that St. Peter was a married man. Is it
so?” “Yes, St. Peter was a married man
but was among those who left all to follow the Lord and preach the Gospel. The
law that priests shall not be married is not a divine law, but what we call
ecclesiastical, and the Church made it because an unmarried clergy is doubly
efficient for many reasons . . . And the constant experience of all Christian
times shows that the experiment, if so it may be called, has been a signal
success ...”
We are glad to learn the editor of the Catholic
Register acknowledges that Peter was a married man, and the law that
priests shall not marry is not divine.
That this so called law has rendered the clergy of
the Church of Rome more efficient we are not prepared to grant, and that the
experiment, for we deem it an experiment, has been a success, we also deny. We
would urge all priests to read carefully the words of Paul concerning the
office of a bishop: “A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife .
. . one that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with
all gravity; for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take
care of the church of God?” (I Timothy 3:1-7).
We would call the attention of all Roman Catholics to
the fact that the law that priests should not marry is not only not a divine
law, but it is a diabolical one. Paul speaks of it as “A doctrine of devils.”
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the
truth” (I Timothy 4:1-3).
Generally Roman Catholics believe that the apostles
were celibates like the priests of today. But Rome, to save her cause, will answer that
when Peter became priest, or Pope, he left his wife. In the Question Department
of the Catholic Observer appeared the following: “St. Peter was married
before he became an apostle, but ceased to live with his wife when he was
elevated to the office and dignity of the Christian priesthood.”
The Menace very aptly answered this slander
against Peter by saying : “If St. Peter ceased to live with his wife one of
them must have left the other. If, on the other hand, St. Peter did the leaving
then he was a wife deserter. The Roman Catholic Church, then, was founded by
and upon a wife deserter.”
WAS PETER EVER POPE?
We
know that this statement that Peter left his wife is a falsehood. Paul makes it
plain that after Peter became an apostle he still had his wife. He says: “Have
we not power to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other apostles, and as
the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” (I Corinthians 9:5).
The Word says: “A bishop must be blameless the
husband of one wife.” Why did Pope Gregory VII say: “Leave your wifes! Forsake
your children! Abandon your home! My clergy shall not marry!”? Why? Because he was not the successor of
Peter.
THERE IS NO SCRIPTURAL PROOF THAT PETER WAS EVER IN ROME
The
Roman Catholic Church teaches that Peter was the first pope, reigning at Rome twenty-five years.
We challenge her to bring a single Scriptural proof in support of her
assertion. If Peter did visit Rome,
the New Testament is completely silent about that visit. The Word of God speaks
of Peter as the Apostle of the Jews. See Galatians 2:7, 8. In reading the Acts
of the Apostles, written by the Apostle Luke, we see Peter at work in Jerusalem, Caesarea and Antioch. If he had been in Rome for twenty-five years as Pope, why did
not Luke mention this fact? No historian would overlook mentioning the most
important event in a man’s life.
In the year 58 Paul wrote a letter to the Romans. In
this letter he mentions more than twenty persons, but he does not say a word
about Peter; he sends no greetings to Pope Peter. If Peter had been there he
would undoubtedly have mentioned it. In 61 Paul goes to Rome to visit all the brethren. He did not
meet Peter there; if he had been there he surely would have seen him. In 62 and
63 Paul wrote to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to
Philemon, from Rome.
He speaks of several of his fellow labourers, but he is silent about Peter. In
66, a short time before his death as a martyr, Paul writes to Timothy from Rome and relates to him
how all had forsaken him except Luke. Does any one believe that if Peter had
been there he, too, would have neglected Paul? Never! Between 41 and 66, when
it was said Peter was in Rome
we cannot find a single passage anywhere in the whole New Testament mentioning
that fact. Why? Simply because Peter never was Pope.
CHRIST’S VICAR ON EARTH IS THE HOLY SPIRIT
Before
leaving the earth Jesus made this promise: “I am with you alway, even unto the
end of the world” (Matthew 28:20). How is he with us? By the Holy Spirit, and
not by a visible head, called the Pope. Jesus said. “It is expedient for you
that I go away, for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but
if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when He is come, He will reprove the
world of sin ... Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide
you into all truth” (John 16:7-13).
This promise was fulfilled on the day of Pentecost.
Since then the same gift of God has been bestowed upon all actual Christians.
Today we need no Pope to guide us. God’s Word is our authority. Every one whom
Jesus saves has the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit to illuminate
his pathway.
Was Peter ever Pope of Rome? NO! Therefore NO POPE COULD EVER BE HIS SUCCESSOR. Consequently the whole
papal fabric falls to pieces. Why? Because it is founded upon a lie.
(The preceding article was written by George R. McFaul, an English
minister and author of London,
England..)
|
