18.

 Although it is not mentioned in the textbook, give your understanding of the Petrine theory.

            On the basis of Matthew 16:18, the Roman Catholic Church proudly proclaims the Petrine theory — that is, that the Apostle Peter is the rock upon which Christ wished to build His Church. An analysis of this theory shows that Rome's claim is altogether spurious from the standpoint of the biblico-patristic tradition, and also from a grammatical analysis of the scriptural passage.

            In the Greek language, the equivalent for Peter is Petros, which means little stone, while rock is petra. Since petra is of the feminine gender, it cannot refer back to a masculine Peter. This fact is conveniently overlooked by Roman apologists.

            What Christ was actually saying to Peter was: “You are Peter [Petros, a little stone], and upon this rock [petra, that is, your proclamation of Me as Christ], I will build My Church, since you alone could not support the weight of its foundation.” In other words, Christ will build His Church upon a person's profession of faith in Him as the Christ, but not upon a mere mortal man such as Peter. Christ never stated that He would build His Church on a man (Peter), a little stone, as this would be too faulty a foundation. Instead, Christ will build His Church upon Himself, the only foundation possible, and upon Peter's profession of faith (homologica). The word homologica, coincidentally, is feminine in Greek, thus corresponding exactly to petra, a large unmovable monolith.

            The Apostle Peter himself obviously recognizes these facts as he speaks of believers as stones, and of Jesus as the rock “upon which God builds” (1 Peter 2:5-8). Again, the Apostle Paul answers who the rock is. He states without qualification that the rock is Christ. “For God has already placed Jesus Christ as the one and only foundation, and no other foundation can be laid” (1 Cor 3:11).

            One of the laymen who opposed the false teaching of papal infallibility (something that grew out of the equally false doctrine of papal supremacy) was Johan Josef Ignaz von Dollinger, Germany's greatest Roman Catholic historian. Dr. von Dollinger was a professor of canon law and Church history at Munich University and was president of the Bavarian Royal Academy of Sciences. Under his leadership, Munich University gained first place in Europe as a center for ecclesiastical studies. Dr. von Dollinger himself was recognized throughout the world as one of the greatest historical scholars in Europe, and he was recognized as the greatest Church historian of his day, bar none. Dr. von Dollinger was also universally acclaimed as a patron of Roman Catholic Church history in the nineteenth century.

            Shortly after the proclamation of the heresy of papal infallibility, Dr. von Dollinger published the book The Pope and the Council — a frontal attack on papal infallibility. In this book, the perspicacious author made a number of irrefutable observations from history, among which is the fact that papal infallibility was completely unknown in the early Church and has always been relentlessly resisted by the Orthodox Church. Therefore, he added, “To the adherents of the theory of infallibility, the history of the Church must appear as an incomprehensible problem.” [Quoted in Michael Whelton, Two Paths... p. 184.] Moreover, Dr. von Dollinger went on to add, no one was ever accused of heresy in denying the authority of the popes in their pronouncements of faith. He also pointed out that it was only much later, by means of a good number of forgeries (see below), that papal infallibility gained ground. In view of these facts, he correctly concluded that Rome would forever be forced to pile one lie on top of another to support this new and false teaching of papal infallibility.

            For Dr. von Dollinger’s great intellectual honesty, his book was quickly placed on the Index of Forbidden books. Also, to make sure that the book would never see the light of day in Catholic circles, the decree stressed quocumque idiomate — “in whatever language” it may be published. As for Dr. von Dollinger himself, the Latin Church excommunicated him — one additional act of the intimidating coercive tactics that Pope Pius IX used all along in order to see that the false doctrine of papal infallibility would become a reality.

            As for the testimony of the Church Fathers, not a single one of them interprets Matthew 16:18 (et al.) as applying to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. St. John Chrysostom taught that “the rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession.” Dr. von Dollinger observed that the other Fathers understood rock in this sense, or understood rock to be Christ Himself; or else they understood it as both of these together — as Christ and as Peter's confession of faith in Christ. Since the Fathers left so complete a witness, Rome is shorn of all defense in its papal claims. For this reason, the subject of patristics (or patrology, the study of the teaching of the Fathers) is given a minor place in Roman Catholic seminary curricula. For this same reason did the Latin Church resort to editing manuscripts and doctoring the testimony of the Church Fathers.

            Among the Roman Catholic Church's numerous forgeries mentioned above, one was the Donation of Constantine. Concerning this document, Professor Walter H. Turner of the University of Detroit writes that it is universally accepted as one of the greatest forgeries of history. According to the Donation of Constantine, which was defended as authoritative until the sixteenth century, the Emperor Constantine confers upon Pope Silvester I and his successors spiritual primacy over all other patriarchs and bishops of the world, granting him imperial honors and granting to the chief Roman clergy senatorial distinctions and honors. To supremacy in spiritual matters was added temporal dominion over Rome, over Italy, and over the provinces, districts and cities of the Western regions. Importantly, this document is not without egregious blunders. For example, Constantine supposedly gives the pope dominion over the four Patriarchates of the East, although Constantinople and Jerusalem had not yet been elevated to patriarchal sees. (Jerusalem, in fact, was not declared a see until the Council of Chalcedon in 451, some 130 years later). Elsewhere, Constantine was calling himself the conqueror of the Huns fifty years prior to their entering Europe.

            The Cambridge Medieval History describes the Donation of Constantine as the “cornerstone of papal power” (vol. 11, p. 586). For over 600 years this fraudulent document was an unqualified success in advancing the falsehood of papal claims. Finally, however, in the face of scholarship that proved it was a brazen forgery, the Roman Catholic Church itself admitted that it was a hoax. (Even so, in spite of that admission, Rome continued deceiving the Western world with the notion of the primacy of the pope).

            This counterfeit document and others like it are never mentioned by the Latin Church today, of course, because of their origin and content. However, the evidence of the Donation of Constantine and other extensive forgeries in the Latin Church beg the questions: if there were absolute evidence of Rome's supreme universal jurisdiction, then why did Rome resort to counterfeit documents? Why the necessity to forge?

            As for the Apostle Peter himself, he knew only one “Supreme Shepherd” — Jesus Christ. Peter never spoke of any primacy or sovereignty over the Church, nor did he ever raise himself over the other pastors of the Church. Very much to the contrary, Peter addressed the other pastors as equals and brothers (Acts 1:16, 2:29, 3:17, 15:7). Likewise, the Apostle Paul knew nothing of Peter's “primacy” or “infallibility” when he “withstood him to his face because he was to be blamed” (Gal 2:11).

            The Roman Catholic Church is presently involved in a frenzied effort to explain its utterly fraudulent papal claims in the face of a growing awareness — both among its laity and clergy — that such claims are altogether false and impossible to defend by historical data. Had the author of the textbook mentioned these facts about the Petrine theory, it would have been all the more obvious to his readers — and to Roman Catholics most importantly — that Rome's papal claims, like all lies, have their source in “the father of lies,” in Satan (cf. Jn 8:44).