The primacy of the pope
The cornerstone of all the errors of the Catholic Church is the doctrine of papal primacy. The essence of this doctrine is as follows: the Roman Pontiff, Catholics teach, is the supreme ruler of the entire Church founded by the Savior; he is God's vicar on earth and the head of all believers. As such, the Pope is superior to the Ecumenical Councils, which receive their confirmation and sanction from the Pope.
On what do Catholics base this anti-Christian teaching about the visible primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the Church?
The Roman Pontiff, Catholics teach, is the successor to the See of St. Peter the Apostle, and therefore should be entitled to all the privileges granted by God to Peter. Peter's privileges consisted in the fact that he was supposedly appointed by Christ as prince over the apostles and supreme head of the entire Church.
Before examining the above-mentioned teaching, let us ask Catholics in what sense they consider the pope to be the successor of the Apostle Peter. If the pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter in the see—in other words, he occupies the see that St. Peter supposedly once occupied—then this foundation is extremely shaky, since it is reliably known that St. Peter was never, in the true sense, Bishop of Rome. True, St. Peter, as tradition says, founded the Roman Church; but, according to the same tradition, St. Peter appointed St. Linus as its ruler, while he himself went to other places to preach the Gospel. If, however, we recognize the pope as the successor of St. Peter solely because the apostle founded the Roman Church, then, on this basis, we must also recognize the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria as successors of St. Peter, since the latter churches were also founded by St. Peter, the Antiochian Church even earlier than the Roman Church. – Why, then, do Catholics attribute only to their Pope the right to be called the successor of the holy Apostle Peter?
In their desire to prove at all costs that only the Pope of Rome has the right to be called, in the proper sense, the successor of the Apostle Peter, Catholic theologians do not hesitate to deliberately distort the truth and say that the Apostle Peter allegedly lived in Rome permanently after the founding of the Roman Church, where he occupied the episcopal see. – Let us see if this is true? In the Epistle to the Galatians, we read the following words of the Apostle Paul: “When James and Cephas and John, who were considered pillars, knew of the grace given to me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcision” ( Gal. 2:9 ), for, the Apostle says above, they saw “that I had been entrusted with the gospel of the uncircumcision, as Peter had been with the circumcision” ( Gal. 2:7 ). In other words, the Apostle Peter was entrusted by God to preach primarily to the “circumcision,” i.e., the Jews. How, we ask Catholic theologians, could the Apostle Peter occupy the episcopal see of the Roman Church and live in pagan Rome, if he was commanded by the Lord Himself to preach the Gospel to the Jews? And if we agree with Catholics, doesn't it follow that the Apostle Peter failed to remain faithful to his calling and, instead of evangelizing the Jews, lived confined to Rome?
That Apostle Peter did not reside permanently in Rome after founding the Roman Church is also evident from the fact that Apostle Paul found it necessary to write an epistle to the Christians of the Roman Church. Indeed, would the Apostle have considered it necessary to instruct in the faith a flock that at that time had Apostle Peter himself as its teacher and bishop? And wouldn't this have resembled the apostolic custom of interfering in one another's affairs, so uncharacteristic? ( Rom. 15:20 ). Meanwhile, the Apostle writes to the Roman Christians: "I long to see you, that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to strengthen you" ( Rom. 1:11 ). Can one therefore admit that the Roman Christians needed the "confirmation" of Apostle Paul, having as their bishop the one whom Paul himself calls the pillar-apostle in his Epistle to the Galatians (see Gal. 2:9 )? It is obvious, then, that the Apostle Peter, although he laid the foundation of the Roman Church 1 , could not be a bishop in the proper sense, i.e., a manager in it, since he was called to preach among the "circumcised ." That is why Paul considered it his duty to "confirm" the Roman Christians, as he himself writes about it, "according to the grace given to him by God to be a minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles and to minister the gospel of God" ( Rom. 15:15-16 ).
If we consider certain internal characteristics of the Apostle Paul's Epistle to the Romans, it becomes even more compelling to conclude that the Apostle Peter was not, in the true sense, a bishop of the Roman Church. Specifically, in the final chapter of the epistle, the Apostle Paul sends greetings to all the members of the Roman community close to him. It would seem that the first greeting should be addressed to the head of the Roman Church—the Apostle Peter; in fact, Paul sends no greetings to the Apostle Peter at all. How can this be explained? It is impossible to imagine that the Apostle Paul, while greeting his flock, forgot about the bishop. It is even stranger to think that the Apostle Paul could have refused to greet the Apostle Peter, who in his general epistle calls Paul "his beloved brother" ( 2 Peter 3:15 ). Clearly, the only correct explanation is this: Paul omits greetings to the Apostle Peter because the latter was not living in Rome at the time and, therefore, was not the ruler of the Roman Church. To support their claim that the Apostle Peter lived in Rome until his death, Catholic theologians typically cite the fact that Peter suffered a martyrdom in Rome. Indeed, the Apostle Peter died in Rome, but this fact alone does not yet establish that he was a bishop there. What's so incredible about the Apostle Peter, who preached to the Jews during his lifetime, arriving in Rome before his death , by a special revelation from God? After all, the Apostle Paul also suffered in Rome, yet he carried out his ministry in various places. If so, then there is no positive evidence to support the assertion that the Apostle Peter was a bishop of the Roman Church, as Catholics claim.
From this it is clear that there is also no basis for considering the Pope the successor of the Apostle Peter, as Catholics do.
Let Catholics acknowledge that the importance acquired by the Roman Pontiff was based not on a supposed succession from the Apostle Peter, but on the importance of the city of Rome itself—the seat of the popes. As bishops of the capital, popes naturally always held greater importance than bishops of provincial cities. At first, they enjoyed a primacy of honor compared to other bishops , but then, taking advantage of favorable circumstances, they began to claim a primacy of power as well. So history tells us.
The teaching about the succession from the holy Apostle Peter, as the supreme head of the Church, was artificially invented by Catholic theologians to assure those who did not want to recognize the teaching about the primacy of the popes in the Church of Christ.
But even if we agree with Catholic theologians and recognize the popes as the successors of St. Peter, the teaching on the visible primacy of the Roman Pontiff in the Church does not stand up to scrutiny. This entire teaching, as we have seen, is based on the special rights and privileges supposedly received from the Lord by St. Peter. In reality, St. Peter received no privileges over the other apostles, was never the head or prince of the apostles, and was not the sole supreme ruler of the Church, but was equal in all things to the other apostles. We will now confirm all of this with the Word of God. The Gospel relates that the question of primacy and seniority arose among the apostles more than once. Each of the apostles, naturally, was preoccupied with the question of which of them was greatest. It goes without saying that such a question could not remain unanswered by Christ. How did the Savior explain this question? Did he say what Catholics teach, that is, that he places Apostle Peter first and foremost among the apostles, entrusting him with supreme leadership in the Church? No; the Savior, on the contrary, demonstrated that the question of primacy and dominion should have been completely foreign to the apostles, that the very idea of primacy is worldly, inappropriate for a correct understanding of the Kingdom of God and the striving for it. “Then ,” says the Evangelist Mark, “ the sons of Zebedee, James and John, came to Him (Christ) and said, ‘Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask.’ He said to them, ‘What do you want me to do for you?’ They said to Him, ‘Grant us that we may sit, one on your right hand and one on the left in Your glory.’ But Jesus said to them, ‘You do not know what you ask...’ And when the ten heard this, they began to be indignant with James and John. Jesus called them to him and said to them, ‘You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever desires to be great among you must be your servant, and whoever desires to be first among you must be slave of all’” ( Mark 10:35–44 ). This significant Gospel narrative contains three clear and direct answers to the vain pretensions of the Roman popes. Firstly, according to the words of the Savior, human relations based on the supremacy of some and the subordination of others should be alien to true Christian society ( "it shall not be so among you" ); secondly, a member of the Church is considered greater than others not one who bases his position on some external advantages (like the Roman popes), but one who, in a purely moral and spiritual sense, brings more benefit to the salvation of his brothers (which the popes cannot boast of); and thirdly, and most importantly, the Savior did not indicate this "greater" among the apostles , but left the desire for this ideal to the free will of each ( "whoever wants to be greater") one who desires to work for the moral benefit of others. And if this is so, then to assert that Christ appointed Apostle Peter as a leader (prince, leader) over the apostles is to distort not only the divine teaching of Christ but also the spirit of all Christianity—in other words, to preach heresy. (See Matthew 23 :8–12 ).
As for the spiritual rights and privileges that belonged to the apostles alone, as the closest co-workers of Christ and the first heralds of the Gospel Truth (which the popes wish to take advantage of), the Savior showed no preference for the Apostle Peter in this regard, but recognized all the apostles as equally equal and worthy of the same honor and glory. Namely, when the Apostle Peter addressed the Savior with the words: "Behold, we have left all and followed You; what then will happen to us?" ( Matthew 19:27 ), the Lord did not say that one apostle would receive one thing and another another, but foretold equal honor and glory to all. “Truly I say to you ,” he said in response to the words of the Apostle Peter, “that you who have followed Me, in the regeneration, when the Son of Man sits on the throne of His glory, you also will sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel” ( Matthew 19:28 ), ( Rev. 21:14 ). As Christ commanded, so the apostles fulfilled.
Never after this did they raise the question of primacy and seniority, much less of dominion, as the Roman popes do; they never thought of considering any of the apostles, for example Peter, as head over themselves, but recognized each other as equals, brothers and co-workers.
Let us provide evidence to support this. Soon after the apostles began preaching , a question arose among Christians about how to accept pagans into the Church —should they be circumcised or not?
To resolve this issue, if we accept the Catholic teaching on the primacy of the Apostle Peter, we should proceed as follows: turn to Peter for clarification and follow his teaching. However, the apostles acted differently; according to the Book of Acts, they gathered in a council in Jerusalem to consider this matter ( Acts 15:6 ). What does this indicate? Nothing other than that the apostles did not consider Peter their head, but, recognizing each other as equals, saw no other way to resolve such an important issue than through a council. Obviously, if one of the apostles had decided this issue alone, Christians might not have submitted to the decision, not knowing the voice of the other apostles. That's the first point. Secondly, when the council was convened, which of the apostles was to preside over it? Of course, the Apostle Peter, since, according to Catholics, he was the supreme head of the Church and the prince of the apostles. In reality, the Apostle James presided, as the head of the Church in Jerusalem (see Acts 15:13 ). But would the latter have been possible if the Apostle Peter had truly been the head of the apostles? Is it possible, we ask Catholics, for a council attended by the pope himself as a member to be presided over by one of the bishops? Of course not. All this once again confirms that the Apostle Peter, despite Catholic assertions, was neither the prince of the apostles nor the supreme head of the Church.
Let's consider other relationships between the apostles and Peter. Can they be considered the relationship of subordinates to a superior? In the eighth chapter of the Book of Acts, we read: "The apostles who were at Jerusalem, when they heard that the Samaritans had received the word of God, sent to them Peter and John, who, when they had come, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit" ( Acts 8:14–15 ). Let's ask Catholics: how are we to understand the above words from the Book of Acts? Subordinates send a superior, while inferiors give instructions to a superior. Is the latter possible? Of course not. This means that the Apostle Peter was not the head of the apostles, but an equal co-worker, subordinate, like all others, to the decisions of the apostolic assembly. And further: in the Epistle to the Galatians, the Apostle Paul writes: “When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face , because he was in trouble… When I saw that they were not living up to the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter publicly, ‘If you, being a Jew, live as the Gentiles do and not as the Jews do, why do you force the Gentiles to live as the Jews do?’” ( Gal. 2:11, 12, 13, 14 ). How can we explain the fact of such an attitude of the Apostle Paul towards the Apostle Peter, if we admit that Peter was the supreme head of the Church at that time? And doesn't it follow, if we agree with the Catholics, that a subordinate opposed a superior, and a lower-ranking one rebuked a higher-ranking one? Further proof that the Apostle Peter was not the supreme head of the Church.
Let us now look at the Second Epistle to the Corinthians. Apostle Paul writes: "I consider that in nothing I am inferior to the chief apostles" ( 2 Cor. 11:5 ). And further: "Are they Jews? So am I. Are they Israelites? So am I. Are they Abraham's seed? So am I. Are they Christ's servants? ... I am greater" ( 2 Cor. 11:22 ). But did Apostle Paul forget that among the chief apostles was Peter, the supreme head of the Church and the prince of the apostles? How could he dare compare himself to Apostle Peter? Wouldn't Catholics really call a bishop mad who would even think of comparing himself to the "most holy" Pope? It is therefore necessary to recognize that the Apostle Peter was not the ruler of the Apostles, but their equal brother and co-worker ( Matthew 23:8 ).
Let us read a few more lines from the first epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Corinthians: “They say among you ,” writes the Apostle to the Corinthians, “I am of Paul”; “I am of Apollos”; “I am of Cephas” ( 1 Cor. 1:12 ). In this the apostle sees the error of Christians, who found it necessary to listen only to the apostle from whom they received baptism. For us, this fact is significant because it clearly shows that Christians did not consider the apostle Peter to be the supreme head of the Church, but placed him on an equal footing with the other preachers of Christianity. Indeed, was it conceivable that at a time when one Christian considered the supreme head of the Church, the apostle Peter, to be his authority and said: “I am of Cephas,” another considered Apollos to be the same authority for himself and said: “I am of Apollos,” and a third – Paul, saying: “I am of Paul”? And if Christians, however, spoke thus, it means that they did not consider Peter superior not only to the other apostles, but even their co-workers, such as Apollos. Let us suppose that the Apostle Paul did not approve of such behavior of Christians, but not because they equated Peter with the other preachers, but because “he who plants and he who waters is nothing, but God who gives the increase” ( 1 Cor. 3:7 ). We could cite many more testimonies similar to those cited above; but we think that the above is sufficient for a clear and decisive assertion that neither the Savior, nor the apostles, nor the ancient Christians considered the Apostle Peter the supreme head of the Church and the prince of the apostles. If we turn to the epistles of the holy Apostle Peter, we will see that he himself does not write anything about his primacy in the Church; on the contrary, there are passages that clearly testify that the Apostle Peter considered himself equally equal with the other servants of Christ. For example: “I exhort the pastors among you, " a fellow shepherd and witness of the sufferings of Christ, and a sharer in the glory that is to be revealed" ( 1 Peter 5:1 ). As for the visible primacy and dominion in the Church, to which the Roman popes strive, supposedly in succession from the Apostle Peter, the latter is decisively rejected by the Apostle Peter: "Shepherd the flock of God which is among you ," the apostle writes to the pastors (including the popes), " taking oversight over it, not by compulsion, but willingly, ... not for filthy lucre, but eagerly, and not being lords over God's heritage, but being examples to the flock " ( 1 Peter 5:2–3 ).
And if so, then how can Catholic theologians decide to go against the covenant of the one whom they themselves recognized as the supreme head of the Church and the vicar of God on earth?
In conclusion, we will say that if the teaching on the visible primacy of the Apostle Peter in the Church, and of his successors after him, had a real basis in the Savior's last will and testament, then the holy Apostles would certainly have expounded it with all thoroughness and passed it on to Christians. Meanwhile, the Apostles remain completely silent on such an important point of Christian doctrine. This last fact clearly demonstrates that the teaching on the visible primacy of the Apostle Peter in the Church was not transmitted by Christ and the Apostles, but was invented by the Popes themselves, adding to the ranks of errors in the Catholic Church. In conclusion, let us ask the Papists: when all the Apostles had died and only John the Theologian remained alive, did the Pope really consider himself superior to him?
2
As we have seen from Holy Scripture, the Lord placed all the apostles on an equal footing and did not grant any one of them superior authority over the other apostles. From this, it is clear that complete equality was to be maintained among the apostolic successors, with no one dominating or others subservient.
This was indeed the case in the Church from the very beginning. Each bishop, considered the head of his local Church, was completely independent in his actions. But over time, the bishops of Churches founded directly by the apostles themselves, or of provincial cities, by virtue of their position, began to acquire greater importance in the Church than other bishops. Naturally, enjoying certain advantages of honor, they could, thanks to this, also strive for authority over the bishops of their district. This phenomenon, of course, could not fail to give rise to an apostolic canon, which would regulate the relationship of both the primate bishop to the bishops of the district, and the latter to the primate bishop. In view of this, Canon 34 of St. The Apostles' Law states: "The bishops of every nation must know the one who is first among them and acknowledge him as their head, and do nothing beyond their authority without his approval. Each must do only what concerns his own diocese and the places belonging to it. But let the one who is first do nothing without the approval of all. For only in this way will there be unanimity, and God will be glorified in the Lord in the Holy Spirit, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit."
Thus, the relationship of the primate bishop to the other bishops of a given district should be as follows: while enjoying the privilege of honor, he nevertheless has no right to interfere in the internal affairs of dioceses, each independently governed by its own bishop. Only matters concerning the entire district are subject to the jurisdiction of the primate bishop; and even in this case, the primate bishop does not act independently, but with the obligatory consent of all the other bishops in the district. Consequently, according to the meaning of the apostolic canon, the primate bishop should not have lordship or authority over other bishops in his district, but rather enjoys only a certain privilege of honor. And if this is so, then how should we view the Roman popes, who have seized upon lordship and authority not only in their own local Church—the Roman Church—but also seek the same lordship over the entire Universal Church? We will not list the reasons that contributed to the popes' desire for supreme authority in the Church: they are all external, accidental, and have no connection whatsoever with the Savior's teachings, the apostolic precepts, or the decrees of the Councils. We will simply note that in the first centuries of Christianity, when popes faithful to the precepts of Christ and the apostles occupied the Roman See, there was no talk of papal primacy in the Church of Christ, and the pope, while governing the Roman Church, did not interfere in the affairs of other Churches. This latter, contrary to the assertions of modern Catholic theologians, is also confirmed by Catholic historians. Thus, the renowned Jesuit Maimbourg writes in his history that in the first centuries, the entire Christian world was divided into Churches: Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, each governed by its own patriarch. Moreover, "the Roman Pope," writes Maimbourg, "as patriarch, and the other two had their own rule; and each of them could undertake nothing within the boundaries of the other ." If, then, in the first centuries, the popes had no primacy in the Church, and their authority was limited to the Church of Rome alone, then who gave them the right in subsequent times to usurp this primacy and claim for themselves supreme authority over the entire Universal Church? The Savior? But He, as we have seen, endowed all the apostles with equal rights. The apostles? But their canon, as we have seen, limits, rather than expands, the authority of the Roman pontiff. The councils? But the latter also took care to ensure that the Roman popes did not assume authority and dominion outside the Roman Church. Thus, the First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea) confirmed in its sixth canon the ancient custom that the Bishop of Alexandria was the supreme bishop for all of Egypt, Livy and the Pentapolis, the Bishop of Rome for his own district (and only for that district), and Antioch for his own. Furthermore, the Council granted the same rights to the Bishop of Jerusalem, out of respect for the sacred significance of Jerusalem (Canon 7).
The Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople) decreed in its second canon that supreme bishops should not extend their authority beyond their own province; and in its third, it granted the rights of supreme bishop to the Bishop of Constantinople, because "that city is the new Rome," and he was to have the privilege of honor immediately after the Bishop of Rome.
The Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon) by its 28th canon confirmed the equality of the See of Constantinople with the See of Rome, to which the former yielded only a place, and in addition separated some provinces (Thrace, Pontus) from the Roman Patriarchate and annexed them to the Patriarchate of Constantinople.
This means that the Councils did not grant the popes supreme authority in the Church, but considered their rights equal to the rights of the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria.
Since neither Christ, nor the Apostles, nor the Councils granted any patriarch, including the popes, supreme authority in the Church, the best of the ancient popes not only, as we have already said, did not seek such authority but also condemned others whenever they saw even the slightest attempt at it. As proof, we will cite one example. In 594, the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, communicated to Pope Gregory the Great the decision of a court in the case of a priest accused of heresy, and in his signature he called himself "ecumenical." This patriarch received this title from the emperor. Nevertheless, the pope immediately sent letters to all the patriarchs, as well as to the emperor and empress, in which he argued that granting preference to one bishop over others could threaten great danger to the Church. "If he who is called the universal bishop," the pope wrote, "falls into error, then the whole Church will err with him." Therefore, as a sign of humility, the pope himself began to sign himself "servant of the servants of God" (servus servorum Dei). How different, it turns out, were the early popes from later ones, who not only claimed a privilege of honor over all hierarchs in the Church but also sought supreme authority in the Church of Christ, contrary to the teachings of Christ, the apostles, and the Ecumenical Councils!
However, there were some popes in ancient times who attempted to interfere in the affairs of other Churches; but such popes always received due and legal rebuff.
Let us tell you one story.
A bishop of the Church of Carthage convicted a priest under his jurisdiction named Apiarius of unlawful conduct. Believing himself to have been wrongfully convicted, Apiarius appealed to Pope Zosimus, who, despite the fact that Apiarius belonged to a foreign patriarchate, acquitted him. This occurred in October 418. Meanwhile, the Council of Bishops of Carthage in May of that year issued a canon prohibiting clergy from seeking a retrial of an episcopal court overseas under penalty of excommunication for life (canon 37). Zosimus needed to somehow justify his actions. And so he sent delegates to Carthage, who declared that the Pope did not recognize the aforementioned decree of the Council of Carthage, since the Council of Nicaea had allegedly granted him the right to hear appeals from the clergy of all Churches. In June of the following year, a regular council of bishops was convened in Carthage, where the statement of Pope Zosima, who had by then already died, was heard. – As expected, the Council Fathers turned to the canons of the Council of Nicaea and, of course, found no provision granting the Pope the right to hear appeals from the clergy of all Churches. Believing that the list of the Council of Nicaea they had was incomplete, the Fathers sent envoys to Patriarch Atticus of Constantinople and Patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, asking them to send them the most accurate copies of the canons of the Council of Nicaea. Upon receiving the latter, the Fathers found them to be entirely similar to those held by the Church of Carthage. The Council then resolved to inform Pope Boniface of the complete correctness of its decrees, and to pardon the priest Apiarius, who had asked the Council for forgiveness for his actions, on the condition that he transfer to another diocese. Boniface, having received the decree of the Council of Carthage, gave no response. Several years passed. Apiarius was again condemned by the Council of Carthage, and again went to Rome with a complaint to Pope Celestine.The latter, like Zosimus, interfered in a matter that was not his and sent his legate to Carthage to investigate. Then, at the Council of 424, the Carthaginian bishops again condemned Apiarius and sent a letter to the Pope decrying the illegality of his interference in the affairs of a foreign Church. "We beseech you, lord and brother," the fathers of the Council of Carthage wrote to the Pope, "that you no longer readily admit those who come from here to your hearing, and that you no longer deign to receive into communion those we have excommunicated: your venerability will readily find that this very thing was also determined by the Council of Nicaea... He wisely and justly recognized that whatever matters arise, they must be ended in their proper places. For the Fathers judged that in no region is the grace of the Holy Spirit lacking, through which the truth is discerned intelligently and firmly maintained by the priests of Christ, especially when, in case of doubt about the justice of the decision of the nearest judges, everyone is allowed to appeal to the councils of his region, or even to the Ecumenical Council...
We find no provision in any of the councils of our fathers for sending certain things as if from your holy rib. For what was previously sent to us through our fellow-bishop Faustinus, as if from the decrees of the Council of Nicaea, we could not find in the most reliable copies of the canons of that council, taken from the originals, which we received from the most holy Cyril, our fellow-bishop of the Church of Alexandria, and from the venerable Atticus, Bishop of Constantinople, and which were also previously sent from us to Boniface, your predecessor, through Priest Innocent and Subdeacon Marcellus, who brought them to us. Therefore, do not deign, at the request of some, to send your clergy here as investigators, and do not allow this, lest we appear to be bringing the smoky arrogance of the world into the Church of Christ."
After all that has been said, there remains no doubt that the ancient Church did not recognize the supreme authority of the Roman popes and not only did not sympathize with their ambitions, but opposed them in every way whenever it noticed the popes striving for supreme authority in the Church. Even secular writers of the time took up arms against papal pretensions, seeing in the popes' desire for supreme authority nothing more than a means to satisfy earthly pleasures. Thus, the fourth-century pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus wrote that ambition fueled rivalry for the Roman throne. "Considering the splendor of Rome," Marcellinus writes, "I will not deny that those who seek this throne will not strive for it in every way." Their clothing is magnificent, they ride as if in a chariot, they eat deliciously, and their table surpasses that of a king; the offerings of matrons enrich them." Here the historian contrasts the lives of the popes with "the lives of certain provincial bishops, who, by all their abstinence, poverty of dress, and modesty of behavior, are truly worthy of the eternal God and His true worshipers." If the ancient Church did not recognize the supreme authority of the Roman popes, then this alone is sufficient for us to finally and irrevocably reject the impious Catholic teaching on the primacy of the pope in the Church of Christ. After all, the ancient Church is the Church of the apostolic fathers who heard Divine teaching from the lips of the apostles themselves—the Church of the holy and God-bearing fathers and teachers—the Church of the Ecumenical Councils. Whom then should we follow? The Holy Fathers of the ancient Church, or the Catholic theologians who justify the primacy of their popes? And if Catholic theologians today argue that papal primacy was established by Christ Himself, does it not follow from their words that the ancient Church, by refusing to recognize papal primacy, acted contrary to the words and teachings of the Savior? Likewise, if the Western Church anathematized the Eastern Church, which refused to submit to the popes, did it not thereby anathematize the entire ancient Church, with its Holy Fathers and Ecumenical Councils, which also did not recognize the supreme authority of the Roman popes? Of course it does.
And which of the Churches therefore deserves to be called the true Church: the Eastern, which preserved the connection with the ancient Church and fidelity to tradition, or the Western, which anathematized the ancient Church and severed all connection with it?
A detailed interpretation of the Gospel reasons adduced by Catholics in defense of papal primacy
1) The first and most important Gospel passage, to which defenders of papal primacy have always referred and continue to refer, is the following words spoken by the Savior to the Apostle Peter: "I say to you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" ( Matthew 16:18-19 ). Based on these words of the Lord, papists conclude that the Church of Christ is, firstly, founded on the Apostle Peter and on him alone, and, secondly, that the Apostle Peter was appointed the supreme head of the Church and the vicar of God on earth. From this, papists draw a second conclusion: that the Pope, as the successor (?) of the Apostle Peter, is the supreme head of the Church and God's vicar on earth. This conclusion is apparently logical, but if we accept it and adopt the Catholic interpretation of Christ's words quoted above, we inevitably face a number of puzzling questions to which the Catholic interpretation does not, and indeed cannot, provide a clear answer.
To better understand the meaning of the above, let us consider the above Gospel passage in context. “Now when Jesus had come into the region of Caesarea Philippi ,” the Evangelist Matthew narrates, “ He asked His disciples, ‘Whom do people say that I, the Son of Man, am?’ They said, ‘Some say that I, the Son of Man, am John the Baptist; others say that I, Elijah; and others say that I, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered and said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Then Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah! For flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.’” and I say to you, you are Peter...” etc. ( Matthew 16:13–18 ).
From the Gospel account given, it is clear that the Lord addressed His question not only to the Apostle Peter, but to all the Apostles together: " Jesus asked His disciples ," it says, " and again: "He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am ?" To the Savior's question, Peter confesseth Him as the Son of God. The question ariseth: Did the Apostle Peter make this confession for himself alone, or did he speak his words in the name of all the Apostles? If we assume that the Apostle Peter made this confession only for himself, then it becomes incomprehensible why the other Apostles were silent? Why did they, like Peter, not confess the Savior as the Son of God? After all, Christ asked all, and not only the Apostle Peter. What then? Perhaps all the Apostles, except Peter, were ignorant of the Divine dignity of Christ and did not recognize Him as the Son of the living God? But to suppose the latter is to deliberately go against the Gospel, which in many places testifies that the Apostles Even before the event mentioned, Christ's brothers had repeatedly confessed the Savior as the Son of God. Let us recall the Apostle Andrew ( John 1:40 ), who immediately after his calling spoke of the Savior to his brother Simon Peter: "We have found the Messiah, which means Christ" ( John 1:41 ). Let us recall the Apostle Nathanael, who, upon seeing the Savior and speaking with Him, exclaimed: "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel" ( John 1:49 ). Finally, let us recall how all the apostles, after the Savior calmed the storm at sea, bowed down to Him and said: "Truly you are the Son of God" ( Matthew 14:33 ).
If so, if Christ's disciples had already confessed the Savior as the Son of God more than once before the event described, then their silence in the above-mentioned case can only be explained this way: the disciples remained silent because the Apostle Peter answered for them all, or more accurately, on behalf of them all, uttering the confession shared by all the apostles: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." That the Apostle Peter spoke specifically on behalf of all the apostles can be confirmed by the Gospel. Thus, the Gospel of John relates the following: "Jesus said to the twelve, 'Will ye also go away?' Simon Peter answered Him, 'Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life: and we have believed and come to know that You are the Christ, the Son of the living God'" ( John 6:67–69 ). While the Evangelists recount more than one instance of the disciples confessing Christ, John's account nevertheless testifies to how one apostle confessed the Savior on behalf of all the others. And what was possible in one instance is also perfectly permissible in another. Thus, the fact that in the aforementioned event, the Apostle Peter confessed the Savior as the Son of God not only for himself but also on behalf of all the other apostles can be considered beyond doubt.
It now goes without saying that if the words of confession spoken by the Apostle Peter were spoken on behalf of all the apostles, then the Savior's response, apparently addressed to the Apostle Peter alone, must also have applied to all the apostles together . It is impossible to think otherwise, for otherwise a new, puzzling and insoluble question would arise: why does the Savior single out the Apostle Peter alone, when the confession uttered by the latter belonged not only to Peter but to the other apostles as well?
This explains the first error of the papists, who interpret the above-quoted Gospel words: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock" ... to mean that they supposedly referred to the Apostle Peter alone. No; as we have shown, they were addressed only to Peter alone, but they applied to all the apostles.
Since the Lord's words applied to all the apostles, they must be understood not as the papists understand them, but somewhat differently. We will begin to explain these words in order. First, what does the expression "You are Peter" mean ? The word Peter is written Petros in Greek, and Petrus in Latin. Both expressions mean "stone" (not "rock," as the papists interpret it, but stony).
Why did the Savior call the apostle stone?
Of course, for firmness in faith, for a rock-solid trust in Him as Christ, the Son of the Living God. Therefore, the expression " You are Peter " is equivalent to the expression "You are made of stone, because your faith in Christ, the Son of God, is firm and strong as a rock." The Savior then said, "And upon this rock I will build My Church ." What should we understand by the rock upon which the Savior promised to build His Church? The answer to this question is not difficult. Since Christ called the Apostle Simon "rock" (Peter) for the firmness of the confession of faith he expressed on behalf of all the apostles, then He naturally calls this very confession of faith in Him as the Son of the Living God "rock." So, the meaning of the above Gospel words, spoken by the Savior through Peter to all the apostles, is this: I say to you, or, equivalently, I call you rock-hard for the firmness of your confession of faith. And on this confession of faith in Me, as the Son of God, I, says Christ, will build My Church. This is how we should understand the meaning of the words spoken by the Savior to the Apostle Peter. This is how the Holy Fathers and teachers of the Church interpret them.
Let us point out a few. St. Cyril, in his fourth book on the Holy Trinity, says: "I think that by the stone we should understand the unshakable faith of the apostles." St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers, teaches: "The stone is the blessed and only stone of the faith confessed by the mouth of St. Peter"; and elsewhere: "On this stone of the confession of faith the Church is founded." St. John Chrysostom, in his fifty-third homily on the Evangelist Matthew, says: "On this stone I will build My Church, that is, on the faith of confession. And what is the confession of the apostle? Here it is: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Let us also cite the commentary of Blessed Augustine, who writes in his second treatise on the First Epistle of John: "What do the words mean: 'I will build my Church upon this rock'? They mean: 'on this faith'—in the words: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.'"
Based on all of the above, we come to the following conclusions:
1) The confession that the Apostle Peter made belonged to all the apostles.
2) The words spoken by the Savior to the Apostle Peter also applied to all the apostles.
3) By the stone on which the Savior promised to build His Church, we must understand the firm confession of faith in Him as the Son of God.
Based on these provisions, we decisively declare that the interpretation of the same Gospel passage by the papists, who argue that the Church of Christ is founded on the person of the Apostle Peter, as the only one of all the apostles who confessed faith in the Son of God, is incorrect and erroneous.
The Papists' interpretation contradicts that of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. It violates the meaning of the entire Gospel narrative; it contradicts the Lord's direct words, for if He had wished to found His Church on Peter, He would have said, "On you I will build My Church." However, the Savior does not say, "On you," but on this rock. The Papists' interpretation, which refers to the Apostle Peter by the rock, finally contradicts the text itself, since rock in Greek and Latin is written "petra," while Peter is written "Petros" and "Petrus," so it is absolutely impossible to confuse these words—"rock" and "stone"—with each other.
But the papists object: even if the words " on this rock " refer not to the Apostle Peter, but to a firm confession of faith, the latter was nevertheless expressed by the Apostle Peter. No, we answer, not by the Apostle Peter alone, but, as we have shown, by all the Apostles. This is in the above-mentioned case; in general, faith in Christ, the Son of God, has been and is expressed by all who have believed and continue to believe in Christ, the Son of God. Therefore, St. Paul writes in his Epistle to the Ephesians that Christians "are built on the foundation (not of the Apostle Peter alone, but of all) of the Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone" ( John 2:20 ). And St. John the Theologian in Revelation saw the Church as a city, and, he writes, "the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb" ( Rev. 21:14 ). And as long as there are people who believe in Christ, and there always will be, the Church of Christ will not waver under the blows of worldly evil, but will remain strong and steadfast. That is why, having said that the Church will be built on faith in Him, the Savior immediately adds: "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" ( Matthew 16:18 ).
II) The second Gospel argument cited by the papists is the Savior's further words addressed to the Apostle Peter: "And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" ( Matthew 16:19 ). Based on these words of the Savior, the papists conclude that the Apostle Peter was appointed by Christ as the supreme head of the Church and God's vicar on earth. This conclusion of the papists is also incorrect and erroneous. We have already shown that the Savior's words, although addressed to the Apostle Peter, nevertheless applied to all the apostles, since all the apostles confessed Christ as the Son of God. Now, to prove our position, we will say that the aforementioned words were repeated by the Savior, and in such a form that their application specifically to all the apostles is more than obvious. In the 18th chapter of Matthew we read the following words of the Savior, spoken to his apostles: “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven” ( Matthew 18:18 ). After His resurrection, the Savior again repeated the aforementioned words, and again in relation to all the apostles: “Jesus ,” the Evangelist John relates, “ breathed on them and said to them (the apostles), ‘ Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they are retained’” ( John 20:21–23 ). True, in both of the above-mentioned cases there is no mention of the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, which the Savior spoke of when addressing the Apostle Peter; but the silence about the keys is not of significant importance. Indeed, if one carefully reads the words of the Savior addressed to the Apostle Peter, it is clearly evident that receiving authority over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is inextricably linked with receiving the authority to bind and loose, and one cannot exist without the other. Receiving authority over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven is nothing more or less than a figurative expression indicating the authority to open and close the doors of the Kingdom of Heaven. But this same authority He who exercises the right to bind and loose also has this right. Thus, authority over the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, the power to bind and loose, was granted by the Savior not to the Apostle Peter alone, but to all the apostles, and equally. If this is so, then to teach, based on the aforementioned words of the Savior, some kind of exclusive rights that the Apostle Peter supposedly received over the other apostles, and even more so to conclude that the Apostle Peter has some kind of special supreme primacy, as the papists do, is arbitrary, unfounded, and erroneous.
III) The third passage from the Gospel, which the papists like to cite as proof of the papal primacy they preach, is represented by the following words of the Savior addressed to the Apostle Peter: “Simon! Simon! behold, Satan hath desired to sift you as wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou hast returned, strengthen thy brethren” ( Luke 22:31–32 ). On the basis of these words, Catholics teach, firstly, that the faith of the Roman popes, as successors (?) of the Apostle Peter, will never fail; and secondly, that Peter was supposedly entrusted with the confirmation of the rest of the apostles ( “thy brethren” ), or, what is the same, was given supreme primacy in the Church.
To visualize the arbitrariness and strained nature of this Catholic explanation, we need only take the above Gospel words not in the fragmentary form in which the papists take them, but in their full context, comparing the narrative of the Evangelist Luke with the narrative of the other Evangelists.
The context of the Gospel passage is as follows: The last days of the Savior's earthly life were approaching, the hour of Christ's great suffering was approaching, and behold, the Son of God was holding a momentous Last Supper with His disciples. During the Last Supper, Jesus Christ , knowing that that very night His disciples would abandon Him and be offended because of Him, said to them: "All of you will be offended because of Me this night. For it is written, 'I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep will be scattered'" ( Mark 14:27 ). Such a prediction, of course, could not help but sadden the disciples, yet they remained silent, not feeling sufficiently bold to object to the words of their Divine Teacher. Only Peter, more ardent and impressionable than the others, cannot resist and begins to assure the Savior of his selfless devotion: "Peter answered and said to Him ," we read in the Evangelist Matthew, " though all shall be offended because of You, yet I will never be offended" ( Matthew 26:33 ). Thus spoke Peter, but the Lord, knowing that the Apostle Peter would not only be offended because of Him along with the other disciples, but would even waver in faith, three times denying his Teacher, says to the Apostle: "... I have prayed for you, that your faith may not fail; and when you have once returned, strengthen your brethren" ( Luke 22:32 ). With these words, the Lord predicts to Peter that, despite his denial, his faith will not fail because of the Savior's prayer , and that upon his new conversion to Christ, the apostle will have to atone for his guilt by strengthening the faith of his brothers, that is, all those to whom Peter will have to preach. However, the Apostle Peter again begins to prove his firmness in faith in the Savior, promising to go with Christ to any feats: "Lord, I am ready to go with You both into prison and to death " ( Luke 22:33 ). Then the Savior directly and clearly reveals to the apostle what will happen to him that very night: "I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow today until you have denied three times that you know Me" ( Luke 22:34).). This is the gist of the Gospel narrative. Where, we ask the papists, is the basis for the teaching that the Apostle Peter was given some special primacy over the other apostles? There is none, and there cannot be. Indeed, was it appropriate to assign primacy to Peter at a time when the Apostle was about to thrice deny his Divine Teacher? Was it even appropriate to speak of the primacy of one and the subordination of others when it was clear that all the disciples would soon abandon their Teacher and be offended by Him? Was it even appropriate to assign primacy to Peter under such circumstances? The papists obviously didn't even consider this. But let's move on to the details. Christ, they say, prayed that Peter's faith would not fail, which means that the faith of the popes, as Peter's successors, will also not fail. Whence this conclusion? What is the basis for such a conclusion? Even the papists themselves will not say. Let's say the Savior prayed for the Apostle Peter's unfailing faith, but he asked God for the same for the other apostles. Let us recall the entire high-priestly prayer, and in particular the words: "I pray for them... for those whom You have given me, for they are Yours... Keep them in Your name... Sanctify them by Your truth"... ( John 17:9, 11, 17 ), and so on. If, through the Savior's prayer, the apostles' faith did not fail, then the faith of all the patriarchs and bishops, who are the successors of the apostles, should also not fail. According to the logic of the papists, this is the case, but they only attribute unfailing faith to their pope, but they refuse to recognize the same for all the successors of the apostles. All this clearly demonstrates that the papists' interpretation of the above Gospel passage is too arbitrary and far-fetched. Let's move on. With the expression "and when you have once returned, strengthen your brethren ," the papists say, the Savior commissioned the Apostle Peter to strengthen the other apostles, or, what amounts to the same thing, entrusted him with leadership over them. Again, an arbitrary stretch. Indeed, who gave the papists the basis for teaching that the term "brothers" in this case must necessarily refer to the apostles? True, the apostles called each other "brothers," but they also applied this name to all people in general to whom they preached the Word of God.
If we agree with the papists and recognize in this passage the term "brothers" as referring specifically to the Apostles, whom Apostle Peter was supposed to confirm and teach, then we will encounter a contradiction with the following words of the Savior to the Apostles: "But do not be called teachers, for one is your Teacher, even Christ; and all of you are brethren. Neither are you called masters, for one is your Master, even Christ." ( Matthew 23:8,10 )
IV) The fourth Gospel passage, which papists also like to cite, is the famous threefold restoration of Peter to the apostolic dignity, which he had lost through his threefold denial of Christ. With the commission to "feed the lambs," the papists claim, the Lord entrusted the Apostle Peter with the supreme leadership of the Church. The papists were obviously tempted by the fact that, having commissioned the Apostle Peter to "feed the sheep and lambs" (see John 21:15-16 ), the Savior did not seem to give such a commission to the other apostles. However, anyone who carefully reads the Gospel will see that each of the apostles received such a commission in the very call to apostolic ministry, so there was no need to repeat this call. As for Peter, he needed a repetition of the call, since through his threefold denial of Christ, Peter lost his apostolic dignity and ceased to be a disciple of Christ. That the Apostle Peter, having denied Christ, had already ceased to be an apostle, is, firstly, self-evident, since it is clearly impossible to be considered a disciple of Christ after denying Him three times. Secondly, this is also evident from the Gospel. Thus, when the Savior rose from the dead, the angel said to the myrrh-bearing women: "Go, tell His disciples and Peter" ( Mark 16:7 ). By singling Peter out from among Christ's disciples, the angel clearly demonstrated that Peter was no longer an apostle of the Savior at that time. And since Peter had lost his apostolic dignity, he naturally needed a new calling to be restored to it. This new calling of Peter to apostolic ministry was accomplished by the Savior with the famous words, "Feed My sheep and My lambs." "Jesus saith unto Simon Peter ," we read in the Evangelist John, " Simon, son of Jonah, do you love Me more than these?" The expression "more than these ," i.e., the other disciples, was meant to remind Peter of how, before his denial, he assured the Lord, "Even if all shall be offended because of You, I will never be offended" ( Matthew 26:33 ). That is why now Peter no longer tells the Lord that his love for Christ is stronger than that of the other apostles, but only humbly answers, "Yes, Lord! You know that I love You ." The Savior then restores Peter to his apostolic dignity, saying, "Feed My lambs" ( John 21:15 ). The threefold restoration of Peter to apostolic dignity and the threefold repetition of the question, "Do you love Me?" was intended to remind Peter of his threefold denial. And Peter understood this, which is why he was saddened when the Lord asked him a third time, " Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You" ( John 21:17).). This is the meaning of the Gospel narrative to which the papists refer.
Where is there any talk here about handing over some kind of supreme leadership to Peter?
That the Lord, with the words "feed my lambs," did not entrust Peter with supreme leadership over the other apostles is especially evident from the subsequent lines of the Gospel narrative. "Then Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following him... When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, 'Lord, what is this man?' Jesus said to him, 'If I will that he tarry until I come, what is that to you?'" ( John 21:20-22 ). The expression "what is that to you" clearly indicates that Peter did not receive any supreme leadership over the other apostles, since the supreme leader would certainly need to know everything concerning the fate of the apostles subordinate to him. Why, in that case, would the Lord not have said to Peter , "what is that to you? "
This concludes our examination of the Gospel evidence cited by the papists to support the supposed primacy of the Apostle Peter, and through him, of all the Roman popes. We now see that the papist teaching has no basis in the Word of God, and if so, it is not a Divine teaching, as the papists proudly claim, but an arbitrary human invention.
On Papal Infallibility
Among the Catholic Church's newly invented dogmas is the dogma of papal infallibility. The essence of this dogma is as follows: the Pope, while fallible like every human being, is infallible in his judgments when discussing matters of faith and the Church. The grace of God, which rests especially upon the Roman Pontiff, does not allow the head of the Catholic Church to err in his official judgments on matters of faith. Catholics express this thus: when the Pope speaks "ex cathedra" (from the pulpit), he is infallible. Before examining this aforementioned teaching of the Catholic Church, let us ask Catholic theologians the following question: since when did popes become infallible? If popes became infallible only in very recent times, when the dogma of papal infallibility was officially established, then naturally this teaching is a new invention, unknown to the ancient Church, and therefore false. If Catholics say that popes have always been infallible, and that they cannot say otherwise, this will be untrue, since history testifies that many popes have sinned not only in ordinary human actions, but also in matters of faith.
To avoid being unfounded, we will point out a number of popes who undoubtedly sinned.
Thus, it is known that Pope Victor (192) approved of Montanism at the beginning of his ministry.
Pope Marcellinus (296-303) committed the sin of idolatry; it was he who made a sacrifice to the goddess Vesta.
Pope Liberius (358) agreed to accept Arianism and condemn St. Athanasius the Great , so that he would be recalled from exile and returned to his former see.
Pope Honorius (625) adhered to the Monothelite heresy.
However, without wishing to incur the condemnation of bias, let us turn to the Catholic historians themselves and see how they characterize their popes. The famous Abbé de Vallemont gives the following characterization of some popes: " Boniface VI (896). 'Although his election appeared canonical, this man did not deserve to be pope. Some historians omit him.' " Stephen VII . 'A cruel man; he forcibly seized the See of St. Peter.' He ordered the body of his predecessor, Pope Formosus, buried in the Vatican, to be exhumed, dressed in pontifical vestments, and seated on the papal throne. Approaching the corpse, he said: "How did you, being Bishop of Porto, dare to ascend the universal Roman See?" Then he ordered his vestments to be stripped, his three fingers, which are used to give the pontifical blessing, to be cut off, and his body to be thrown into the Tiber. He deposed all those consecrated by Formosus. For this, the citizens attacked Stephen, bound him with irons, and imprisoned him." Sergius III (907). "He did not have canonical rules in mind in order to become pope." Lando Sabinus (912). "A man of shady life. On the recommendation of Theodora, a powerful woman whose history had somewhat tarnished her glory, he made a dishonorable man bishop." John X (913). "He achieved the papacy through the intrigues of Theodora. This man, so unworthy of being pope, was very useful to Italy." John XI (931). "Of shameful birth. The son of Sergius III and Marozia, a Roman lady, who had illegally achieved the See of St. Peter, he, by the way, showed much patience and strength in prison, where his brother, Gaius, had ordered him imprisoned." John XII (955). "He was the son of the Tuscan Marquis Alberic. He was elevated to the papal throne at the age of eighteen through the intrigues of his relatives. For his disorderly life, he was expelled from Rome, where he returned again through the intense efforts of noble ladies. An Italian, dissatisfied with either his wife or the pope, deprived him of the papacy and his life. John XV (985). “A Roman. This person was not highly praised. Church estates, intended for the poor, were generously distributed by him to his relatives. He died of hunger in prison.” John XVIII (1024). “He became pope through force and money. When he was expelled from his see, Conrad, King of Germany, came to Rome expressly to restore him.” Benedict IX (1034). “From the Tuscan counts. Made pope through violence and simony." Damasus II(1048). "He himself became pope; but fortunately he did not long occupy the throne he had stolen." We have, of course, not cited excerpts about all popes, but only about those whom even the most docile conscience would not agree to recognize as infallible in matters of faith. We will now indicate the popes who contradicted each other in matters of faith and violated each other's decrees. "Paschal II (1088-1099) and Eugene III (1145) approved of duels, while Julius II (1609) and Pius IV (1560) forbade them. Eugene IV (1431-1439) recognized the Council of Basel and the restoration of the use of the Holy Chalice in the Bohemian Church, while Pius II (1458) abolished this privilege. Hadrian II (867–872) declared civil marriages valid, while Pius VII (1800–23) condemned them. Sixtus V (1585–1590) published an edition of the Bible and approved it with his famous bull, while Pius VII condemned those who read it, etc. (Speech by Bishop Strossmayer). After all that has been said, there can be no talk of papal infallibility in matters of faith. Indeed, the grace of God, which, according to Catholics, rests upon the popes, cannot contradict itself and instruct popes in opposite matters, since the Lord is one and the same forever and does not change (see Heb. 13:8 ).
And can common sense agree that individuals who frequently occupied the papal throne through intrigue, violence, and simony; individuals whose entire lives were often a complete violation of the divine canons; individuals who continually transgressed the law of faith and issued decrees that contradicted one another—could be infallible in their judgments on matters of faith and the Church? To admit the latter is to admit an absurdity more absurd than which, it seems, nothing could be more absurd.
True, Catholic theologians attempt to prove that everything historians report about many popes is false and slanderous. But if we admit that even one pope erred in matters of faith, then this alone is sufficient to completely destroy the entire theory of papal infallibility concocted by Catholic theologians. If grace restrains one from error, why did it not restrain the other? And how can we know which of two popes judges matters of faith correctly and which incorrectly, if both are infallible? And who will determine the correctness of a pope's judgment if Catholics have no one higher than him, and only the infallible pope himself is the criterion for his judgments in matters of faith? The only way out of this labyrinth is to recognize the doctrine of papal infallibility as untenable and reject it as contrary not only to history but to common sense. Will Catholic theologians ever agree to this? Of course not, for by doing so they would be signing the death warrant of their Church as it currently exists. To openly and bluntly admit that errors exist in the Western Church would be to debunk it, remove it from the pedestal on which it has illegitimately stood, and restore it to its proper place. And so Catholic theologians resort to the most impossible contortions, just to somehow justify the Catholic Church's invented doctrine of papal infallibility.
How did this strange doctrine arise? Its emergence was an inevitable consequence of the earlier doctrine of papal primacy.
By recognizing the pope as the head of the Church, God's vicar on earth, placing him above the ecumenical councils, Catholic theologians encountered a natural and inevitable obstacle. It turned out that the Catholic Church had lost its infallible authority in matters of faith. Until now, such authority in the Church had been held by the ecumenical council; but once it is recognized that the pope is superior to the council, once the latter's decisions are considered valid only upon confirmation by the pope, it follows that the authority of infallibility should belong not to the council, but to the one who sanctions the council's decisions—that is, the pope. Catholic theologians were thus faced with the following dilemma: either reject the primacy of the pope or recognize papal infallibility in matters of faith. The theologians chose the latter. Thus, one error inevitably gave rise to another.
What can we say about this new error of the Catholic Church?
We have already seen how groundless and absurdly bizarre this newly invented teaching proved to be before the inexorable tribunal of history. Now let us place it before the tribunal of God's Word and demonstrate its groundlessness from another angle.
Let us ask Catholic theologians: to whom did Christ entrust the highest, infallible authority in the Church? Theologians will say: to the Pope, as the successor of the Apostle Peter. But the Word of God tells us otherwise:
Having founded His Church on earth—that is, the community of believers in Him—the Divine Founder of Christianity, our Lord Jesus Christ , did not grant infallible authority within this community to any one specific member, but rather entrusted it to the entire Christian community, or the entire Church. Only the entire Church received the right to be the final judge in matters of faith; only the decision of the entire Church was granted the authority of infallibility, so that anyone unwilling to submit to the Church's decision could no longer be considered a member of the Church.
“If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother. But if he does not listen, then take with you one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. But if he does not listen to them, tell it to the church. But if even the church does not listen, let him be to you as a heathen man and a tax collector ” ( Matthew 18:15–17 ). This is what Christ taught. For this reason, the Apostle Paul wrote to his disciple Timothy: “The church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth” ( 1 Timothy 3:15 ).
Why did Christ entrust the authority of infallibility only to the entire Christian community, and not to any one member of the Church? It's very simple. Matters of faith can be decided only under the guidance of the Holy Spirit ( John 14:26 ; for more details, see 1 Corinthians 2 ). The fullness of the grace-giving gifts of the Holy Spirit is not the property of any one member of the Church, but belongs to the entire Christian community. Only the entire Church, as the entire body of Christ, bears the fullness of Divine grace, while individual members of the body of Christ, or the Church, bear only the gift of Divine Grace inherent in their position. This truth is beautifully expressed by St. Paul in his first epistle to the Corinthians.
"To each one ," writes the apostle, " is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. To one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit; ... to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another discerning of spirits, to another different kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues... For as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ... For the body is not one member, but many" ( 1 Cor. 12:7-14 ). If each member of the Church is the bearer of only a certain part of the gifts of grace, while the fullness of the latter belongs to the whole Church, as the whole body of Christ, then it is clear that only the whole Church can be considered an infallible judge in matters of faith, as the property of the entire Christian society. Meanwhile, Catholics recognized as a judge an individual member of the Church - the pope. But does the pope combine in himself all the fullness entrusted to the Church? the grace of the Holy Spirit? Of course not. The latter would only be the case if the Pope alone constituted in his person the whole body of Christ, or the Church; but “if ,” writes the Apostle, “ the whole body were an eye, where was the hearing? If the whole were hearing, where was the smell? If all were one member, where were the body?” ( 1 Cor. 12:17–19)). This is why, when matters arose in the Church that concerned the entire Christian community, the Church never relied on the vote of any one particular member, but always convened Ecumenical Councils to resolve them, whose authority, as the voice of the entire Christian community, it considered infallible. It may be objected that the Church sometimes accepted the opinions of individuals for general guidance. Yes, but not immediately, only when these opinions were approved and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils. Until then, the opinions of individuals on matters of faith were considered private opinions, not binding on the entire Christian community. Therefore, the error of Catholics who recognized the Pope as infallible in matters of faith lies in the fact that, contrary to the Word of God and the Tradition of the Church, they entrusted infallible authority to an individual member of their Church; and secondly, they set their Church on the path to new errors and errors. Indeed, who can guarantee that popes won't abuse their infallibility and invent even more egregious errors? After all, anything can be expected from popes like the ones we saw at the beginning. And who will keep the pope from making mistakes? The grace of God? But the pope, as we have shown, is not the bearer of the fullness of Divine Grace. An Ecumenical Council? But the latter, as Catholics believe, is not valid without papal approval. Individuals? But they are obliged to unconditionally believe popes whom they themselves have recognized as infallible. But perhaps Catholics will say: the pope always has knowledgeable people at his side who, if need be, can warn him against errors. Such an objection would again contradict the established state of affairs in the Catholic Church. The fallible will keep the infallible from error, and the authority of papal infallibility will become dependent on the opinions of people capable of error. This is the labyrinth into which Catholic theologians led their Church when they created the doctrine of papal infallibility.