We're going to begin today a study of the specific teachings which make up the content of the Roman Catholic tradition. We're going to begin with the papacy. This comes under our general heading of authority. We've looked in detail at the issue of authority relative to tradition and the scriptures, and now we want to look at the issue as it relates to the church as embodied in the office of the papacy. There are basically two fundamental teachings of the Roman Catholic Church related to the papacy. Those being, first of all, papal primacy, or if you will, papal rule, and secondly, papal infallibility. We will look, first of all, at the issue of papal primacy this week, and to some degree also next week, and then at the issue of infallibility in the week to follow. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Pope has been given the authority by Christ to rule the entire church. He is, according to the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, the vicar of Christ, invisible head of the church. This was dogmatically decreed by Vatican I in 1870, and the biblical basis for this claim, according to the Church of Rome, is found in Matthew 16, verses 18 and 19. It's the same passage which they used to support the doctrine of infallibility. I've given you a copy of the decrees of Vatican I, which you can read at your leisure. For our purposes here, I will simply summarize what Vatican I teaches relative to papal primacy. It would take too long to go through and just read through what Vatican I teaches, but you can do that on your own. Let me, if I could, just summarize the teaching of Vatican I, and those basic teachings can be summarized in the following propositions. Number one, Christ gave Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church as well as the entire world. Number two, this right of jurisdiction is passed down to Peter's successors, the bishops of Rome, for all time. Number three, the Roman pontiff has absolute authority in himself, possesses authority over all councils, his judgment cannot be questioned, he himself can be judged by no human tribunal. Fourth, these teachings have always been held in the entire church through all the ages and can be validated by the scriptures, by the canons of general councils, and by the unanimous consent of the fathers. Fifth, it has at all times in the history of the church been necessary that every church throughout the whole world should agree with the Roman Church. And then sixth, it is necessary for salvation that everyone who professes to be a Christian must be submitted to the authority of the Roman Pontiff in all areas of faith and morals and discipline, and if anyone disagrees with these teachings of Vatican I, they are anathematized, that is, they are put under an eternal curse, eternally condemned. Now, these teachings are a major part of the Church's tradition. We want to examine the claims of Vatican I that they can be supported by the Scriptures, by the testimony of the Fathers, and by the experience of the overall Church. The foundational passages of Scripture upon which the Roman Catholic Church rests its claims for the papacy are Matthew 16, 18 and 19, along with John 21, 15 to 17, and Luke 22, 31 to 32. According to the Roman Church, the Lord Jesus Christ, in response to Peter's confession that he was a son of God, promised to build his church on Peter and entrusted him with supreme authority when he said, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven. Whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Now on the basis of this passage the Church of Rome teaches that Peter was given the authority by Christ to rule the entire church and that this right of jurisdiction is transferable to those who follow Peter as the bishops of Rome. Consequently the church teaches that Christ inaugurated or instituted the institution of the papacy beginning with Peter as the first Pope. The rock in Matthew 16.18 is interpreted by Rome to mean the person of Peter himself. The exegesis of that passage is that Christ changes Peter's name from Simon to Peter and then tells him that he's going to build his church on him personally. And that this is the meaning that Christ intends, they say, is placed beyond all doubt by his words to Peter. and the promise that he makes to him relative to the keys when he says to him that he will give him the keys of the kingdom of heaven with authority to bind and loose. Roman Catholic apologists point out that since keys represent authority in scripture, Peter is given supreme authority over the entire church and this is supposedly passed on to the Roman bishops who are his successors. The Protestant and Eastern churches on the other hand generally assert that this exegesis is incorrect. They maintain that when Christ states that he will build his church on a rock, he is not referring to Peter personally, but to Peter's confession that Christ is the Son of God, and therefore to Jesus himself as the rock. In the original Greek, Christ refers to Peter as Petros, and then he says on this Petra, I will build my church. Christ addresses Peter directly in the second person. But when he uses the term, this rock, he changes his address to the third person, indicating that he's not referring to Peter as the rock. He is talking to Peter about the rock, referring back to Peter's confession that he is the Christ, the son of the living God. If he had meant to refer to Peter specifically, he would simply have said, you are Peter and on you, Peter, I will build my church. Now, this point of view is validated. by a number of lines of reasoning without having to rely strictly on an interpretation of Petra and Petros in Matthew 16 is a great deal of ink that has been spilt, if you will, along the lines of interpreting what does Petra and Petros mean in the interplay that Christ gives to those two words, his play on words, if you will, between Petra and Petros. But you don't have to rely on a strict definition or interpretation, if you will, of the Petros-Petra contrast in that passage. to conclude that what Jesus means is not that he has referred to Peter specifically as the rock, but actually to himself. Those supporting evidences basically are four in number. First of all, you have Peter's own interpretation of the rock of the church and what that means. Secondly, you have the contextual meaning of the word rock from both the Old and the New Testaments. Thirdly, you have the contextual interpretation of the entire Matthew 16 passage, beginning with verse 13 and then through verse 19. And then finally, you have the overall patristic interpretation of Matthew 16. What is the historical exegesis from the point of view of the fathers and how they viewed this passage? Did they, in fact, view Peter to be the rock upon which the church would be built? Did they agree, in other words, with the Roman Catholic interpretation that is presented today? What I'd like to do is look at each one of these briefly. First of all, you have the issue of Peter. If there is one person who should have known what Christ meant by the words he spoke, as recorded in Matthew 16, 18, it was Peter himself. Did Peter consider himself to be the first pope and the rock on which the church would be built? Well, Peter himself gives us the answer in 1 Peter 2, verses 4 to 8. In this passage, he says this, And coming to him is to a living stone, rejected by men, but choice and precious in the sight of God. You also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. But this is contained in Scripture. Behold, I lay in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone, and he who believes in him shall not be disappointed. This precious value, then, is for you who believe, but for those who disbelieve, the stone which the builders rejected, this became the very cornerstone and a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense. Peter is appropriating passages here from the Old Testament, specifically from the book of Isaiah and from Psalms, which we are going to look at in more detail in a moment. These passages prophesy of the stone or the rock which God would establish as the foundation of the church. and Peter specifically applies them, as does the Apostle Paul, to the person of Jesus Christ himself. The precious stone and cornerstone, the rock upon which the church will be built, is according to Peter, not himself, but the Lord Jesus Christ. But does Peter view himself as being vested with authority over the other apostles? Well, in 1 Peter 5, 1-4, he says this, Therefore I exhort the elders among you, as your fellow elder and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a partaker also of the glory that is to be revealed, shepherd the flock of God among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but voluntarily, according to the will of God, and not with sordid gain, but with eagerness, nor yet as lording it over those allotted to your charge, but proving to be examples to the flock. And when the chief shepherd appears, you will receive the unfading crown of glory." Peter refers to himself simply as a fellow elder, with the other elders of the church, all of whom are under the ultimate authority of the chief shepherd, the Lord Jesus Christ. Peter does not refer to himself as the vicar of Christ with the visible head of the church. He is an apostle among other apostles of equal standing and a fellow elder with other elders. There is only one head and one ruler of the church and that is Jesus Christ. Now this exegesis of the rock as being Christ who is the foundation of the church, as the one upon whom the church would be built, Find support from both the Old and New Testaments, in addition to this one passage that we have looked at in Matthew 16. In the Old Testament, we find the Lord himself described as the rock, the one sure foundation of security and salvation. For example, in Psalm 62, verses five to six, it says, My soul wait in silence for God only for my hope is from him. He only is my rock and my salvation, my stronghold. I shall not be shaken. In Psalm 18, verses 1 to 2, it says, I love thee, O Lord, my strength. Thou art my rock, my fortress, my deliverer, my God, my rock in whom I take refuge, my shield, the horn of my salvation. And then in Psalm 89, verse 26, you have a statement by the Lord himself referring to David when he says he will cry to me. Thou art my father, my God and the rock of my salvation. There are many other examples of this. But the point is that over and over again in the Old Testament, the person of God himself is referred to as the rock, as the one and only source and foundation and refuge for salvation and deliverance. And of course, if you remember, there's the prophecy in Daniel of the stone which strikes the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream and destroys it and then completely displaces the kingdoms of the world on the earth. And the Jews viewed the stone to be the person of the Messiah. It obviously represents that which is divine, for it is described as a stone cut out without hands, and it fills the entire earth, the kingdom of God. That stone is the Messiah, the person of God himself. We've already seen that in the New Testament, the Apostle Peter himself refers to the rock or the stone as being the person of Christ. So the stone or the rock is a person, but it is not Peter. It is God. and it is Jesus Christ. Now, the word foundation is another important word that is similar to the word rock that is also used in reference to the person of the Lord himself. In the Old Testament, the word in a physical sense refers to the foundation upon which a building rests and is erected. For example, in Ezra 3.10, it says this, And when the builders had laid the foundation of the temple of the Lord, the priests stood in their apparel with trumpets to praise the Lord. Now this word is extremely important to understand for it is used in a foundational passage in the Old Testament that is appropriated by the New Testament apostles to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ. It's therefore predictive of His person and His ministry. That passage is Isaiah 28, 16. It says this, Therefore thus says the Lord God, Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, a costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disappointed." Now, if you remember what we just quoted from Peter, out of 1 Peter, this is the passage he's quoting about the cornerstone, which is being placed by God as a foundation. He says, he who believes in him will not be disappointed. He applies this to Jesus Christ. Now, you notice the threefold description out of Isaiah 28. A stone, a cornerstone, and a foundation. The stone or rock is not only a cornerstone, it's a foundation. Of course, as mentioned, this is the very passage, again, that Peter uses to refer to the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, he, along with Paul, applies Isaiah 8, 13, in addition to Isaiah 28, and also Psalm 118, verse 22, where they say that Christ is the rejected stone, the stone of stumbling, the rock of offense. Peter uses three passages or rather uses these passages in his preaching in Acts 4, verses 11 to 12, where he equates Jesus with the stone in the context of salvation and the preaching of the gospel. He says he was the stone rejected by you, the builders, but which became the very cornerstone. And he says that very famous passage, there is salvation and no one else. There is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved. So here we see the term stone and cornerstone being equated with salvation which applies in particular to the person of Jesus Christ. Now Paul re-emphasizes this in three other passages in his writings. In Ephesians 2.20 he states that the church is built upon the foundation of Christ as the cornerstone. And in 1 Corinthians 10.4 he states specifically that the rock is Christ. And then in 1 Corinthians 3.11 he says this, For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." Who then did the scriptures both Old and New Testament consistently point to as the rock, the stone, the cornerstone, and the foundation upon which the church would be built and who is the rock of our salvation? Jesus Christ, the Lord, the Son of the living God, God Himself, the same as in the Old Testament. The rock is a person, a divine person. the Lord Jesus Christ. So these scriptures then give us a broader context in which to interpret Christ's words to Peter in Matthew 16 so that we might understand what he means by the rock. Now in justifying his teaching that the bishops of Rome have been delegated authority to rule the church universal, the Roman Catholic Church interprets the rock of Matthew 16 not to Jesus Christ specifically, but to the person of Peter. But we've seen that Peter does not refer to himself as the Rock, but to Christ, and that the broader context of the scriptural teaching on the Rock justifies our interpreting the Rock in Matthew 16 as referring to the person of the Lord Jesus Christ as opposed to Peter. But the Roman Catholic claims, relative to their interpretation of Matthew 16, are actually undermined by the passage itself. The Roman Church states that in the giving of the keys to Peter, this passage suggests that Christ established a dynasty, if you will, with successors to Peter, those being the bishops of Rome. But there is absolutely nothing in the Matthew 16 passage which speaks about successors to Peter and the passing on of his personal prerogatives to them. Sometimes Roman Catholics appeal to the authority of Protestant theologians, such as Oscar Coleman, who say that they personally feel that the rock of Matthew 16 does in fact refer to the person of Peter. These Roman Catholics are quick to say, well you see, even the Protestants agree with us that the rock is Peter. But such appeals are illegitimate and sometimes actually broach on being dishonest. For they rarely go on, the apologists that is, rarely go on to explain that these exegetes in no way support the Roman Catholic point of view. For they all unanimously state that this passage has nothing to say about successors and they completely repudiate the Roman Catholic interpretation. The keys, rather than signifying the establishment of the institution of the papacy and supreme authority to rule the church and the world, are representative of the authority to exercise discipline in the church and to proclaim the gospel and declare the free forgiveness of sins in the Lord Jesus Christ. Such a declaration opens the kingdom of God to men or if they reject the message, it closes it to them. The keys are also not the possession of a single individual. For exactly the same authority which Christ promises to Peter, he also grants to the other apostles in Matthew 18-18 and in John 20 verses 22-23, they are all given the authority of binding and loosing by declaring the forgiveness of sins through Christ. They are all equals under the authority of one head, the Lord Jesus Christ. The authority they are given is a delegated declarative authority which in Christ which is in Christ's name and comes from him who alone possesses the supreme authority to rule the church." To justify that kind of an interpretation, we need to make a careful investigation and to take a closer look at what Matthew 16, in terms of the entirety of the passage, is teaching. We have to begin with verses 13 or with verse 13 and go all the way through verse 19 to get the flow and the context of this passage. Now, Jesus tells his disciples in this passage that he will build his church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it. He reveals that there are two kingdoms on this earth, the kingdom of God or of heaven, and all who are part of the church are part of this kingdom. And then you have the kingdom of Satan, which is represented by the gates of Hades. These two kingdoms are in conflict with one another. Now gates, when Jesus says the gates of hell, gates are defensive. Gates are not used in offense. They are used to defend. Gates, if you will, figuratively enclose Satan and the men and women who are doomed to eternal destruction. When Jesus says that he will build his church, he is saying that he is going to invade Satan's kingdom and his defenses will not be able to prevail against the attack. The church will be built. The kingdom of God will be advanced. But how are the prisoners within Satan's kingdom set free into the kingdom of God so that the church is built? The answer is through the proclamation of the gospel, which declares the forgiveness of sins, deliverance from Satan and eternal judgment and the certain gift of eternal life. all based on the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ. What is the great promise of the gospel? It is what has God described it to be in Romans 1, for example, where he says it is the power of God to salvation. It liberates men and women. It frees them. See, men enter the kingdom when they are born again and redeemed by the blood of Christ. And it is to this specifically that the terms binding and loosing in Matthew 16, 19 refer to. The Greek word for loose is luo. It means to destroy, to set free one who is bound, to loosen, to release, to dissolve. It's used, for example, in 1 John 3.8 where the Apostle John writes these words, The one who practices sin is of the devil, for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose that he might destroy the works of the devil. The word destroy here is luo and it has direct reference to Satan and sin. This emphasis is brought out even more emphatically by Revelation 1 5. To him who loves us and released us from our sins by his blood. Now the word released is the word luo and it could just as accurately be translated who loosed us from our sins by his blood. That's the basic idea behind Lucy. It speaks of deliverance from Satan through repentance and coming under the dominion of God and therefore into his kingdom and receiving forgiveness of sins through faith in Jesus Christ on the basis of the atoning work that he has made as a propitiation for the sins of the world and the shedding of his blood and the laying down of his life. Now in addition to the primary word, Luo, There are a number of derivatives of that word which are also used in the New Testament which reveal that the application of the word loose when dealing with the kingdom of God primarily refers to sin and Satan and with deliverance from the guilt and the power of sin. Apoluo, for example, is one word. It means to release, to set free, to send away, to dismiss, to forgive. Another form of the word luo is lutron. which means a ransom or the price for redeeming something. So it refers to a loosing that takes place, a setting at liberty that is effected when a ransom has been paid. And the significance of this can be seen from the fact that the Greek word for redemption in the New Testament is apolutrosis. Now that's a form of the word lutron which goes back to the word luo or loose as its primary root. Apollutrosis or redemption means a releasing effected by the payment of a ransom. It specifically means redemption, deliverance, or a liberation procured by the payment of a ransom. Now this word is used in the New Testament to describe deliverance from Satan and forgiveness of sin based on the atoning work of Jesus and the shedding of his blood and the giving of his life as a ransom or a payment for sin. You remember what Jesus said about himself? The Son of Man has come not to be served, but to serve and to give himself a ransom for many. He's going to pay a price. And in paying that price, he's going to free or liberate men and women who are bound in sin and under the authority or the dominion of Satan. Let me just give you a couple of illustrations of how this word is used relative to the kingdom of God and relative to the whole idea of being set free from dominion, from the dominion of Satan and from the power of sin. In Colossians 1.13-14, the Apostle Paul writes this, For he delivered us from the domain of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his blessed Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. Ephesians 1.7 says, In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses. And in Romans 3.24-25, it says being justified as a gift by his grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, and God displayed publicly as a propitiation in his blood through faith. The Greek word that Jesus uses in Matthew 16, 19 for binding is Deo, which simply means to be bound, to be in bonds, to be a captive. Now another form of the word is Duleo, which means slavery, and it's used to speak of the condition of men who are apart from Jesus Christ and in bondage to Satan. They are slaves of sin. Thus, binding and loosing, if you will, have to do with the proclamation of the gospel and the offer of forgiveness and deliverance in Jesus Christ, if men and women will repent and believe and come to Christ. If they receive the message and come to him, they will be loosed from their sins and Satan's doomed kingdom, and they will enter into the kingdom of God, eternally free, eternally changed. eternally forgiven. You see the same truth in the parallel passage in John 20. Just before Jesus commissions his disciples to invest them with the authority of the keys on the night before he was crucified, he says to them, as the Father has sent me, I also send you. He then grants them authority to continue to do what the Father had sent him to do. The Father sent Jesus with authority to preach the gospel. And in giving the disciples authority to forgive and retain sins, he is simply authorizing them to also preach the gospel. The authority they receive is a delegated authority. And that's clear from Matthew 28, 18 through 19, where Jesus says, All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all the nations. Now, this delegated authority was not a jurisdictional authority, if you will. It was declarative. It was an authority to proclaim the message of the gospel. And that can be seen also from the passage in Luke 24, the commission that Jesus gave to his apostles. In Luke 24, verses 46 to 49, Jesus says, Thus it is written that the Christ should suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sin should be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things. And behold, I am sending forth the promise of my Father upon you, but you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high." Following the anointing of all the disciples of Pentecost, the book of Acts relates how they exercised the function of the keys in proclaiming the gospel they were commanded to preach. They faithfully testified to the person and work of Jesus Christ and the urgent need for repentance and faith, assuring them that they could be loosed, but warning them that if they rejected the message, they would be bound. This is the application of the keys, the meaning of binding and loosing as Jesus describes it in Matthew 16, 19. It's authority. It's an authority, if you will, to declare the gospel and to offer to men the kingdom of God and free forgiveness of sins. And as Jesus is preached and men respond, the kingdom of God will be extended The church will be built and the gates of hell will not prevail against the truth of the gospel and the power of God to snatch men and women from Satan's grasp and to give and to bring them to himself. Some Roman apologists teach that the keys of the kingdom granted to Peter is an allusion to the key of David mentioned in Isaiah 22, which was given to the prime minister in the Davidic kingdom. This position had successors. This, they say, justifies the teaching that Christ is establishing Peter as what you might call the prime minister of his church with successors in the bishops of Rome. But such an assertion is undermined by the very words of the Lord Jesus himself in Revelation chapter 3, verse 7, where he says that it is he alone who possesses the key of David. He alone holds ultimate ruling authority in the church, and this has been delegated to no man. Scripture teaches that the Lord Jesus Christ is the only head of the church and that the Holy Spirit is his vicar on earth. In John 14, 16, Jesus promises to send the Holy Spirit to his church to permanently indwell believers. He says, and I will ask the Father and he will give you another helper that he may be with you forever. That is the spirit of truth. Note that here he refers to the Holy Spirit as another helper. The word another here obviously implies that just as Jesus had been the helper to the disciples during his ministry on earth, so the Holy Spirit would take his place when he ascended into heaven. The Holy Spirit will rule the church and direct it in Christ's absence. Jesus did not appoint a human head and ruler of his church, but told us that the Holy Spirit will himself fulfill that function. Now, as convincing as these arguments are, there's an additional reason why the Protestant interpretation of Matthew 16 is seen to be the correct interpretation. And that is that it best fits the history of the New Testament church as well as the history of the church in the centuries following the apostolic age. Vatican I states that it can validate its claims and its interpretation of Matthew 16 by the practice of the church throughout all the ages as well as through the universal consent of the fathers. So there are two tests by which the church's claims can be validated. First of all, the test of history and practice. Secondly, the test of historical interpretation of Matthew 16. Therefore, if the Roman Catholic interpretation is correct, after the resurrection of Jesus, his ascension and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, we would expect to see certain things take place. We would expect to see Peter as the undisputed head and ruler of the church, acknowledged as such by the apostles and the church in general. We would expect to see Peter playing the dominant role and the building of the church. And we would expect to see a clear and unanimous testimony of the early church in its teaching and its practice to the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, 18 and 19. Since this is supposed to be the key passage in the charter of the church as to how it is to be organized, we would expect to see in the tradition of the church a unanimous consent of the fathers regarding this passage in particular. We would expect to find a clear expression in the church in the ensuing centuries of the acknowledgement of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of Peter and supreme ruler of the entire church with ultimate authority in all matters related to faith, morals, and discipline and a submission to him in that rule. After all, Vatican I explicitly says that it has at all times been necessary for all Christians to be in agreement with the Bishop of Rome and that this has in fact been the perpetual practice of the church from the very beginning. And then finally, we would expect to find the popes exercising their special prerogatives in leading and guiding the church in positively proclaiming the truth and protecting it from heresy. This is what we would expect. What did the historical facts tell us? Well, we're going to look this afternoon at the issue of the interpretation of Matthew 16, and then next week we will look in detail at the historical facts dealing with the role of Peter in the early church, as well as the attitude and practice of the early church and its relationship with the bishops of Rome. Vatican I, Turning now to this whole issue of interpretation, Vatican I claims that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, 18, and 19 has been universally or unanimously held throughout the Church, and that it can appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers and the universal practice of the Church to support its teaching that the Bishop of Rome has always been acknowledged as the supreme ruler of the Church. The foundation to this assertion, obviously, is the interpretation of Matthew 16. While the early fathers are quite varied in their opinions and interpretations of Matthew 16, 18, and 19, some speak of the rock to mean Christ, some to mean Peter, and others to mean Peter's confession of Christ. No fathers of the early centuries can be cited as supporters of the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16, 18, not one. The fathers of the first two centuries are completely silent on the interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16. And the overwhelming majority of the Fathers throughout the entire patristic age, such as Augustine, Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Ambrosiaster, Cassian, Epiphanius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Ephraim of Sirius, John Cassian, Theodorae, and even Gregory the Great, and many others, do not recognize the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. And all of them disagree with the Roman Church's interpretation of Matthew 16.18. In fact, there's not a single father who recognizes the personal prerogatives of Peter as being transferred in a personal way to the Bishop of Rome, thereby making him head of the church. There is a unanimous consent of interpretation in Matthew 16, 18, and 19, in that it is a near unanimous opposition to the Roman Catholic interpretation which has been articulated by Vatican I. Augustine is fairly representative of the opinion of the fathers In his comments on Matthew 16, I'd like to just give you those comments. Now, this is just one one comment that he's made. He's made similar comments and other other writings that he has. But this is representative of his thoughts. He says this, But whom say you that I am? Peter answered, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. One for many gave the answer, unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas. For flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. Then he added, And I say unto thee, as if he had said, Because thou hast said unto me, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. I also say unto thee, Thou art Peter. For before he was called Simon. Now this name Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure that he should signify the church. For seeing that Christ is the rock Petra, Peter is the Christian people. For the rock Petra is the original name. Therefore, Peter is so called from the rock, not the rock from Peter, as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he saith, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build my church, that is, upon myself. the son of the living God, will I build my church? I will build thee upon myself, not myself, upon thee. For men who wished to be built upon men said, I am of Paul, and I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas, who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the rock, said, I am of Christ. And when the apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, Is Christ abided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? And it's not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter, but in the name of Christ, that Peter might be built upon the rock, not the rock upon Peter. Here we have the most renowned theologian of the Catholic Church after five centuries of church history, the preeminent member of the infallible magisterium. giving an interpretation of the most important passage of Scripture in all of the Bible for the Roman Catholic Church, which is foundational for its claim to authority, which is directly contradictory to the Roman interpretation. And how do you explain that? If there were truly, as Vatican I states, a unanimous consensus of interpretation of the meaning of this passage, why do we find Augustine deliberately going against such a consensus? The answer is quite simply that there never was such a consensus, as an investigation into the patricic exegesis of this passage reveals. Tertullian, in the beginning of the third century, was the first to identify the rock of Matthew 16 with Peter and his treatise on modesty. What's interesting about his comments is that he is writing them in opposition to the Bishop of Rome, who had legitimized certain practices that he had initiated by applying to himself the authority of the keys given to Peter. These are his words. If because the Lord has said to Peter, upon this rock I will build my church, to thee I will give the keys of the heavenly kingdom, or whatsoever thou shalt have bound or loosed in earth shall be bound or loosed in the heavens. You, therefore, presume that the power of binding and loosing is derived to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter. What sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring, as that intention did, this gift personally upon Peter? On thee, he says, will I build my church, and I will give to thee the keys, not to the church, And whatsoever thou shalt have loosed or bound, not what they shall have loosed or bound. For so wither the result teaches. In Peter himself the church was reared, that is, through Peter himself. Peter himself assayed the key. You see what key? Men of Israel, let what I say sink into your ears. Jesus of Nazarene, a man destined by God for you, and so forth. Peter himself, therefore, was the first to unbar in Christ's baptism the entrance to the heavenly kingdom, in which kingdom are loosed the sins that were before time bound, and those which have not been loosed are bound in accordance with true salvation." Now, Tertullian does state that Peter is the rock, but what he means is not that Peter is the rock in the sense that the church is built on him, but that it is built through him as he preaches the gospel. And the keys are a declarative authority to proclaim the forgiveness or loosing of sins in Jesus Christ. And he states very explicitly, no bishop of Rome has a right to apply to himself a promise and authority which he says were given to Peter alone. He denies that this passage has any application to the bishops of Rome at all. Cyprian, like Tertullian, states that the rock of Matthew 16 is the person of Peter in his famous treatise on the unity of the church. But like Tertullian also, he did not mean this in the sense of the Roman Catholic interpretation. His view is very similar to Augustine, or if you will, Augustine's view is very similar to Cyprian's, since Cyprian preceded Augustine. It's very similar in that he maintains that Peter isn't an example of the principle of unity. The entire Episcopate, according to Cyprian, is the foundation, though Christ himself is the true rock. All of the bishops constitute the church and rule over their individual areas of responsibility as co-equals. This is what he says, Certainly the other apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honor and power, that a commencement is made from unity, that the church may be set before us as one, which one church in the song of songs that the Holy Spirit design and name in the person of our Lord. The Roman Catholic historian Michael Winter affirms the fact that Though Cyprian does describe the rock as referring to Peter, he does not mean this in a pro-Roman sense. He says this, Cyprian used the patron text of Matthew to defend Episcopal authority, but many later theologians influenced by the papal connections of the text have interpreted Cyprian in a pro-papal sense which was alien to his thought. Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop. But since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority. Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter. A Latin father who is often cited in support of the Roman interpretation of Matthew 16 and 18 is Ambrose. It's not uncommon in polemical literature to read the following quote from his writings. Ambrose says it is to Peter himself that he says, you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. Where Peter is, there is the church. And the interpretation given to these words is that the rock is Peter and that the bishops of Rome are his successors as rocks of the church. Therefore the church is founded upon the universal rule of the bishops of Rome for where Peter is, there is the church. But Ambrose has made other comments on Peter and Matthew 16 and has explained exactly what he means when he says that Peter is the rock. He does not mean what the Roman Catholic Church says it means today. Listen to his words. He then, who before was silent to teach us not to repeat the words of the impious, this one I say when he heard, but who do you say that I am, immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy. That is the primacy of confession, not of honor. The primacy of belief, not of right. This then is Peter who has replied for the rest of the apostles, rather before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation because he knows how to preserve not only his own, but the common foundation. Christ agreed with him, the father revealed it to him. Faith then is the foundation of the church. For it was not said of Peter's flesh, but of his faith. The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy. For since the church, like a good ship, is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the church should prevail against all heresies. Make an effort, therefore, to be a rock. Do not seek the rock outside yourself, but within yourself. Your rock is your deed. Your rock is your mind. Upon this rock your house is built. Your rock is your faith. And faith is the foundation of the church. If you are a rock, you will be in the church, because the church is on a rock. If you are in the church, the gates of hell will not prevail against you." When he says then that Peter is the rock, he means it in the sense that he was the first to openly confess faith in Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Son of God. The rock then is not Peter himself, but Peter's confession of faith. It is this faith which is the foundation of the church. Peter possesses a primacy. But he explains it as one of confession of faith, not of honor or rank in the sense of ruling over the other apostles. Thus, when Ambrose states that where Peter is, there is the church, he means where Peter's confession is, there is the church. He does not mean the Bishop of Rome at all. So the comments of Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, and Augustine summarize the views of the Latin Church from the 3rd to the 5th centuries. And what's been said of the Latin fathers can be equally said of those from the East. For example, Chrysostom is typical when he refers to Peter as the leader of the apostles and the head of the choir, but he does not interpret the rock of Matthew 16-18 in the Roman Catholic sense. He'll say great things about Peter. He has very high-sounding language for Peter, but when it comes to interpreting Matthew 16, he does not interpret that rock to mean Peter personally. And what's interesting is that the same kind of high-sounding language that he attributes to Peter, he also attributes to the other apostles. He makes these statements. He speaks from this time lowly things on his way to his passion, that he might show his humanity. For he that hath built his church on Peter's confession, and hath so fortified it that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it. And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, that is, on the faith of his confession. The rock is not the person of Peter, but Peter's confession of faith. in Christ to be the Son of God. And while Chrysostom does speak, again, of Peter in very lofty terms, I'll just say again that he says the same thing about the Apostles John and Paul. For example, when referring to John, he says that with Peter he received the keys to the kingdom of heaven and was given authority along with Peter to rule the world. So John and Peter are on an equal footing in the eyes of Chrysostom. Like Ambrose, he says that where Peter is, there is the church and the sense of Peter's confession. But he applies it not to Rome, but to Antioch. He says, though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter. And retaining the faith of Peter, we have Peter. Now, what I'd like to do is just go through a number of quotes from some of the leading fathers of the patristic age to give you a sense of what the consensus is, if you will, of what these fathers really taught about Matthew 16. Now please bear with me in quoting these, they are somewhat lengthy, but as with the quotes on Sola Scriptura, the combined effect of these comments is quite impressive. Hilary of Poitiers makes this statement. A belief that the Son of God is Son in name only and not in nature is not the faith of the Gospels and of the Apostles. Once I asked, was it that the blessed Simon Barjona confessed to him, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And this is the rock of confession whereon the church is built. That Christ must be named not only Son, but be believed to be the Son of God. This faith is that which is the foundation of the church. Through this faith the gates of hell cannot prevail against her. This is the faith which has the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatsoever this faith shall have loosed or bound on earth shall be loosed or bound in heaven. The very reason why he is blessed is that he confessed the Son of God. This is the foundation of the church. Thus our one immovable foundation, our one blissful rock of faith, is the confession from Peter's mouth, Thou art the Son of the living God. If we too have said like Peter, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, we become a Peter and to us there might be said by the word, Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church. For a rock is every disciple of Christ, of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them and upon every such rock is built every word of the church. But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it, hold in regard to all, and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, Upon this rock I will build my church. Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to all? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. If anyone says this to him, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the gospel to that Peter. But as the spirit of the gospel teaches to everyone who becomes such as Peter was, Excuse me, it says, but as the spirit of the gospel teaches to everyone who becomes such as that, Peter was. For all bear the surname of Rock, who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual Rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of Rock, just as Christ does. But also, as members of Christ deriving their surname from him, they are called Christians and from the rock Peter's. And to all such, the saying of the Savior might be spoken, thou art Peter, et cetera, down to the words prevail against it. Cyril of Alexandria, for when he wisely and blamelessly confessed his faith to Jesus, saying you are Christ, son of the living God, Jesus said to divine Peter, you are Peter. And upon this rock, I will build my church. And by the word rock, Jesus indicated, I think, the immovable faith of his disciple. Upon this rock I shall build my church and I shall give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. In the first place, he says that the church is under his own authority, but scripture elsewhere affirms that the church is subject to God rather than to any man. For Paul says that Christ has prepared the church for himself to be without any wrinkle of blemish. The church which he has founded, the foundation itself being predicated of him. And in response, Peter exclaimed, You are Christ, son of the living God. And when Christ heard this true opinion of him, he repaid Peter by saying, And I tell you, you are Peter. And upon this rock, I will build my church and the gates of hell should not prevail against it. The surname, I believe, calls nothing other than the unshakable and very firm faith of the disciple, a rock upon which the church was founded and made firm and remains continually impregnable, even with respect to the very gates of hell. Eusebius. Yet you will not in any way err from the scope of the truth if you suppose that the world is actually the church of God and that its foundation is in the first place that unspeakably solid rock on which it is founded. As Scripture says, upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And elsewhere, the rock moreover was Christ. For as the apostle indicates with these words, no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Then, too, after the Savior himself, you may rightly judge the foundations of the church to be the words of the prophets and the apostles in accordance with the statement of the apostle, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone. Jerome, the one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon the stable and firm foundation which has itself been laid on solid ground, the church of Christ is built. But the church was founded upon a rock. Upon this rock the Lord established his church and the Apostle Peter received his name from this rock. You are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my church. Just as Christ himself gave light to the Apostles in order that they might be called the light of the world, so other names were derived from the Lord. For example, Simon who believed in the rock Christ was given the name Peter. Was there no other province in the whole world to receive the gospel of pleasure and into which the serpent might insinuate itself except that which was founded by the teaching of Peter upon the rock, Christ? Gregory of Nysa. The warmth of our praises does not extend to Simon insofar as he was a catcher of fish, rather it extends to his firm faith, which is at the same time the foundation of the whole church. Basil the Great. Now the foundations of this church are on the holy mountains since it is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. One of these mountains was indeed Peter. Athanasius. Thus it is written, thou art the son of the living God. Peter confessing it by revelation of the father and being told, blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood did not reveal it to thee, but my father who is in heaven and the rest. No one, therefore, will ever prevail against your faith, most blessed brethren. And so the works of the Jews are undone, for they were a shadow. But the church is firmly established. It is founded on the rock and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Now, what does he mean by the rock? He says up in what I just quoted to you, no one, therefore, will ever prevail against your faith. He says the gates of hell shall not prevail against the rock. What is the rock then? It is faith. Ambrosiaster, wherefore the Lord says to Peter, upon this rock I shall build my church. That is, upon this confession of the Catholic faith, I shall establish the faithful in life. Ambrosiaster goes on to say this about Paul and his conflict with Peter. To his faith, to his face, Paul says, I oppose him. What does this mean, except that Paul contradicted Peter in his presence? And Paul has added the reason because he stood condemned. condemned assuredly by evangelical truth, which Peter's act of separating himself from the circumcision opposed. For who dared to contradict Peter, the chief apostle to whom the Lord had given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, except such another who in the assurance of his election knew that he was not unequal, and so could firmly disavow what Peter had thoughtlessly done. Pass in. The Lord spoke to Peter a little earlier. He spoke to one that from one he might found unity, soon delivering the same to all. Epiphanius, Peter stands forth for us in the likeness of a solid rock upon which the church has been fully erected and upon which as a foundation, our faith in the Lord rests. Among the foremost in faith, Peter confessed that Christ, the son of the living God, and in return he heard upon this rock of solid faith, I shall build my church. Cyril of Jerusalem. As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the church, arrived and set the era right. Aphrahat, thus also the true stone, our Lord Jesus Christ, is the foundation of all faith. And on him, on this stone, faith is based. And resting on faith, all the structure rises until it is completed. For it is the foundation that is the beginning of all the building. For when anyone is brought nigh unto faith, it is laid for him upon the stone. That is our Lord Jesus Christ. And his building cannot be shaken by the waves, nor can it be injured by the winds. But the stormy blast, it does not fall because its structure is reared upon the rock of the true stone. And in that I have called Christ the stone. I have not spoken my own thought, but the prophets beforehand called him the stone. Ephraim of Cyrus shouted forth in thy beauty as the beauty of the sun, who clothed himself with suffering. They all passed in thee, since they handled thee roughly as they did his hands, and because he suffered he reigned, as by thy sufferings thy beauty increased. And if they showed no pity upon thee, neither did they love thee, still suffer as thou mightest. Thou hast come to reign. Simon Peter showed pity on the rock. Who so has smitten it is himself thereby overcome. It is by reason of its sufferings that its beauty has adorned the height and the depth. Who is the rock according to Ephraim? It's Jesus Christ. Deodorae. Let no one then foolishly suppose that the Christ is any other than the only begotten Son. Let us not imagine ourselves wiser than the gift of the Spirit. Let us hear the words of the great Peter. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Let us hear the Lord Christ confirming this confession. For on this rock, he says, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Wherefore, to the wise Paul, most excellent master builder of the church, has fixed no other foundation than this. I, he says, is a wise master builder, have laid the foundation and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereon, for other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Surely he is calling pious faith and true confession a rock. But when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up saying, You are the Christ, the son of the living God. To which the Lord answered, Truly, truly, I say to you, you are Peter. And upon this rock I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Gregory the Great. Moses is set on a rock in order that he may look upon the form of God, for unless a person holds fast to the firmness of faith, he does not know the divine presence. And concerning this firmness, the Lord says, upon this rock, I shall build my church. According to this firmness, which he says is the rock. Well, what is the firmness? He quotes that he says the firmness of faith. So what is the rock, according to Gregory the Great? It is faith. What are all thy brethren, the bishops of the universal church, but stars of heaven whose life and discourse shine together amid the sins and errors of men, as if amid the shades of night? Are not all the bishops together clouds who both reign in the words of preaching and glitter in the light of good works? And when your fraternity despises them and you would fain press them down under yourself, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds? Certainly Peter, the first of the apostles, himself a member of the Holy and Universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John, what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one head. Not one of them has wished himself to be called universal. Now, let your holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself and desiring to be called by that name, which no one presumed to be called. It was truly holy. Now, those words were written to John of Constantinople by Gregory the Great. because John of Constantinople was assuming to himself the title of universal bishop, chief ruler of the church, and he is rebuked by Gregory for claiming for himself a title which was indicative of a position that did not exist in his day. He said that even Peter and James and John were all equals under one head, there's only one head, the Lord Jesus Christ. He says to try to call yourself a universal bishop or a pope, if you will. He says it's the spirit of Satan himself because he says, in so doing this you would fain press down others under yourself. He says, what else say you but what is said by the ancient foe, I will ascend above the heights of the clouds. He says it's the height of pride to attempt to call oneself and to position oneself as the universal bishop of the church. Didymus the Blind. How powerful is Peter's faith in his confession that Christ is the only begotten God, the Word, the true Son of God, and not merely a creature. Peter believed that Christ was one and the same deity with the Father, and so he was called blessed by him who alone is the blessed Lord. Upon this rock the church is built, the church which the gates of hell, that is the arguments of heretics, will not overcome. Cassiodorus. You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. For the church cannot be moved, because it is known to have been founded on that most solid rock, namely Christ the Lord. The church's foundation is Christ the Lord. From this foundation Christ is rightly inferred, who is an immovable foundation and an inviolable rock. Concerning this, the apostle says, for no other foundation can any man lay than that which is already laid, which is Christ Jesus. Palladius of Helianopolis says this, You however, who do you say that I am? Not all responded, but Peter only, interpreting the mind of all. You are Christ, son of the living God, the Savior, approving the correctness of this response, spoke, saying, You are Peter, and upon this rock, that is, upon this confession, I shall build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Basil of Seleucia. You are Christ, Son of the Living God. Jesus confirmed this statement and with his approbation, thereby instructing all. Blessed are you, Simon Barjona. He called Peter blessed so that Peter might join faith to his statement. Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it Peter, perceiving the appellation, which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion. This is the basis of salvation. This is the wall of faith and the foundation of truth. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Notice of Ansara. If, moreover, a man of the Lord is met, the first to be compared to go would be Cephas, whose name is interpreted rock. This is the highest of the Apostles, Peter also called Cephas, who furnished in his confession of faith the foundation for the building of the church. Asterius says, aptly indeed Isaiah says prophetically that the father was laying the son as a cornerstone, doubtless signifying that the whole structure of the world was born upon the foundation and base. The only begotten calls Peter the foundation of the church, saying, You are Peter, and upon this rock I shall build my church. Now this chief, as it were, great and hard stone Christ, was set into the excavated hollow of this world, into this veil of tears, as David says, in order that he might bear all Christians founded upon him aloft into the domicile of our hope. For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus. Isidore Seville, the last of the church fathers in the West in the mid-7th century, says this, Christ is called a foundation because faith is established in him and because the Catholic Church is built upon him. So Peter first received the power of binding and loosing and he first led people to faith by the power of his preaching. Still the other apostles had been made equal with Peter in a fellowship of honor and power. And then finally, John of Damascus, who is the last of all the church fathers, he is an Eastern father, writing in the middle of the 8th century. And Peter, fired by a burning zeal and prompted by the Holy Spirit, replied, You are Christ, son of the living God. This is that firm and immovable faith upon which, as upon the rock whose surname you bear, the church is founded. Against this, the gates of hell, the mouths of heretics, the machines of demons, for they will attack, will not prevail. This rock was Christ, the incarnate word of God, the Lord, for Paul clearly teaches us the rock was Christ. Let me just summarize the views expressed by these fathers from the 3rd to the 8th centuries from both the East and the West on the meaning of Matthew 16. The rock and the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ, or Peter's confession of faith, which likewise points to the person of Jesus. Peter is the rock or foundation in the sense that he is the example of true faith, In other words, he exemplifies faith. Peter is also representative of the unity of the entire church. What Christ spoke to Peter, he spoke to the entire church. And what was given to Peter was given to all the apostles and through them to the entire church. The keys are a declarative authority to teach the truth and preach the gospel and to exercise discipline in the church. Now what all this reveals is that there is no patristic consensus to support the papal interpretation of Matthew 16, 18-19, which equates the rock with the person of Peter and thereby assigns to him and the Roman bishops preeminence in the church through the authority of the keys. The Roman Catholic Church cannot appeal to the unanimous consent of the Fathers to support its exegesis of Matthew 16 because such a consent does not exist. The quotations that I have cited in the documentation that I've handed out to you at the beginning of our session list the comments of those major fathers of the patristic age from both the East and the West up through the 8th century on the meaning of the Matthew 16 passage, demonstrating that the overwhelming majority view of the church has not been that set forth by the Roman Catholic Church. Theologians Carl Fried Froehlich and John Begain have shown us that the predominant historical exegesis of Matthew 16-18 after the patristic age all the way up through the time of the Reformation, did not equate the rock with Peter, but with Christ or with faith. Roman apologists often claim that the Protestant exegesis of Matthew 16-18 grew out of the Reformers' need to legitimize their opposition to the papacy, and consequently they invented, they say, an exegesis which contradicts the traditional view of the church as a whole. But that is simply not the case. Oscar Coleman confirms this when he says, Joseph Ignaz von Dallinger, who taught church history as a Roman Catholic for 47 years and was the preeminent church historian of the last century, basically says the same thing. I'm going to give an extensive quote from Dollinger, but it is very, very important in what he says because he sums up for us the whole attitude and the whole leaning, if you will, of the patristic age relative to the interpretation of Matthew 16 and their attitude to the papacy. And not really the papacy as much as to the Bishop of Rome. This is what he says. In the first three centuries, St. Irenaeus is the only writer who connects the superiority of the Roman Church with doctrine. But he places this superiority rightly understood only in its antiquity, its double apostolic origin, and in the circumstances of the pure tradition being guarded and maintained there through the constant concourse of the faithful from all countries. Tertullian, Cyprian, Lactantius know nothing of special papal prerogative or of any higher or supreme right of deciding a matter of doctrine. In the writings of the Greek doctors, Eusebius, Athanasius, Basil the Great, the two Gregories, and Epiphanius, there is not one word of any prerogatives of the Roman bishop. The most copious of the Greek fathers, Chrysostom, is wholly silent on the subject, and so are Cyril of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria. Equally silent is the Latin fathers, Hilary, Passian, Zeno, Lucifer, Sulpicius, and Ambrose. Augustine has written more on the Church, its unity and authority, than all of the other fathers put together. Yet from all his numerous works, filling ten folios, only one sentence and one letter can be quoted where he says that the principality of the apostolic chair has always been in Rome, which could, of course, be said with equal truth of Antioch, Jerusalem, and Alexandria. Any reader of his pastoral letter to the separated Donatists on the unity of the Church must find it inexplicable that in these seventy-five chapters there is not a single word on the necessity of communion with Rome as the center of unity. He urges all sorts of arguments to show that the Donatists are bound to return to the church, but that the papal chair is one of them, he says, not a word. All of this is intelligible enough if we look at the patristic interpretation of the words of Christ to Saint Peter. Of all the fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels, not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many fathers have busied themselves with these texts? Yet not one whose commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodorae, and those whose interpretations are collected in Catinas, has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is a consequence of the commission and promise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build his church of the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors. But they understood by it either Christ himself or Peter's confession of faith in Christ often both together, or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with all the other apostles, the twelve being together the foundation stones of the church. The fathers could the less recognize the power of the keys and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Bishop of Rome. In as much as what is obvious to anyone at first sight, they did not regard a power first given to Peter and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the apostles as anything peculiar to him or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing. The importance of this patristic interpretation of Matthew 16 cannot, as I mentioned last week, be overstated relative to the Roman Church's claim to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture and its subsequent claim then to ultimate authority in the Church. Here in Matthew 16, we're dealing with a matter of interpretation relative to the most important and foundational passage in all the Scriptures for the Roman Catholic Church. And as we investigate the specific interpretations of Matthew 16-18 of the early fathers in both the East and the West who make up the Magisterium of the Church, we find they give an interpretation that does not agree with the Roman Catholic Church today, but with the view held by the Protestant Reformers. Now this clearly, totally undermines the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be an infallible interpreter of Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church teaches that the Magisterium of the early church was infallible in interpreting scripture. The Roman church is not infallible then if the interpretation it gives today does not agree with the infallible magisterium of the early church. The very decrees of Vatican I in their very nature prove that the Roman church is not infallible, nor is a Roman council infallible. For it teaches that its decrees on papal infallibility and papal rule are based on its interpretation of Matthew 16, which it says was a unanimous interpretation of the fathers of the early church. Now, as we've seen, that is not true. Therefore, these decrees are based on a lie. Vatican I anathematizes anyone who rejects the interpretation that it imposes on Matthew 16. That interpretation is contrary to the patristic interpretation in tradition. Therefore, it anathematizes Augustine and the majority of fathers who composed the Magisterium of the early church. In fact, when you take the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 on the Eucharist, the decrees of the Council of Trent in Vatican I, and the papal decrees of Mary, or on Mary, by the specific popes who have given us those decrees on Mary, The entire church of the patristic age and beyond for many centuries is anathematized for no father agrees with the vast majority of those teachings. Once again, as with the teaching on tradition, the Church of Rome has demonstrated that it has departed from the faith of the early church and has introduced teachings as articles of faith, which it says are necessary for salvation, which were never taught in the early church. So relative to the issue of authority, We've seen that the Roman Catholic Church claims ultimate authority because it says that it established the canon of Scripture and that it has been granted an infallible authority to interpret Scripture. Therefore, it is not Scripture which is the ultimate authority, it's the Roman Catholic Church itself, embodied specifically in the head, or what it would say is the head, the Bishop of Rome. Both of these claims, relative to the canon and relative to infallible interpretation, obviously fallacious. The Roman Catholic Church did not establish the canon for the church as we saw a couple of weeks ago. In fact, the Council of Trent has introduced books into the canon of Scripture which were rejected by the Jews in their canon and which were universally rejected by the church throughout the centuries all the way up to the Reformation as we saw in our time on the canon. And the church is obviously not an infallible interpreter of Scripture, for it has interpreted this major passage of Scripture contrary to that which was held by the early church. Next week we want to look at the historical aspect of papal rule and just see if these claims by Vatican I can be validated by the practice of the early church. And in the following week we will look at the issue of infallibility.