POPE FICTION
A review by Bill Jackson of this book by Patrick Madrid
I will try to review each of the chapters of this book in subsequent copies of the CEC Journal. Needless to say, I will not even try to cover every argument Patrick gives, but, hopefully, this review will help you as you contact Catholics who are not like the ones Karl Keating described in the previous article.
The first chapter endeavors to counteract the Protestant position that Peter had no special authority. Madrid claims that Peter's "special apostolic authority was "substantial and explicit" Scriptural evidence. Since it is always our desire to see what the Bible says, we will look at the scripture verses Patrick gives, and see if they do indeed offer "substantial and explicit" evidence of Peter's primacy.
The first instance (mentioned on page 23), Madrid writes, "In Acts 1, Peter rallies the other Apostles and leads them in taking the first step along the path of apostolic succession. They choose Matthias, but wait a minute. The Pope, which role Madrid says Peter officially received in John 21, is in charge of appointing the clergy, not of asking others to "cast their lots."
In explaining Matthew 16:18,19 Dr. Murray of Maynooth Roman Catholic Seminary in Ireland says, "By saying these words, Jesus appointed Peter supreme head of the Church, and gave him full authority to legislate for it; to teach, to inspect and judge; to reject and denounce all false doctrines, and to declare what is the true Faith; to appoint all its clergy and teachers and to arrange their work; in short, the whole church, its officers, its constitution, its work, were entrusted to Peter."
Patrick might say that this not infallible teaching; this is usually the excuse given by a Catholic when an authoritative statement is made by a Bishop. We can therefore turn to Lumen Gentium, a Vatican II document. The 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church has 293 quotations from Lumen Gentium.
It said, "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ namely, and as pastor of the entire church, has full supreme and universal power over the whole church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered" (Vatican II, edited by Austin Flannery, O.P., page 375).
Keep this statement in mind as we look at Patrick's other scriptural "proofs."
He tells how Peter preached on the Day of Pentecost and 3000 were converted. We all rejoice in that, but wonder if the present pope preaches the same Gospel. Peter's message was "Repent and be baptized;" the pope's is "Be baptized and, later on, do penance."
His account of Acts 15 follows the usual Catholic rhetoric. "He delivers apostolic teaching . . . and stilled the debates raging back and forth and caused the whole assembly to fall silent. . . . it was through Peter that the revelation (regarding the status of the Gentiles) was given to the Church at the council. In essence, Peter was saying to the Church: 'Here is what we have to do, brothers. The Lord delivered the answer to me.'"
However, we find the actual text to be quite different. Peter does give a good synopsis of what God had taught him at the house of Cornelius, but the people kept silent so they could hear Paul and Barnabas. Verse 13 says (after Peter spoke), "Then the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul . . ."
The clincher, of course, comes with verse 19, when James stood up and said, "Therefore my sentence is . . ." The word sentence is from the Greek krino, which means to decide. The Douay Bible has James saying, "For which cause I judge . . .". This is after he had referred to Peter's statement but had exegeted the prophetic writings concerning the salvation of the Gentiles.
Note also that nothing of was contained in James' sentence, or decision, was specifically what Peter had said. So there goes the "substantial and explicit" scriptural evidence.
Much of Patrick's argument is from his preeminence in the Gospels, yet he admits Peter did not assume the papal role until after Christ's resurrection.
He admits that, "At this point in the biblical narrative, Peter fades from our view."
So what has been proved from the Book of Acts? Peter asked the other disciples (not just the Apostles, but 120 brethren) to vote for the successor of Judas. Then he preached a sermon where 3000 were saved (a most un-pope-like posture). After some notable miracles which Patrick does not mention specifically, Peter speaks out at the Jerusalem Council, as do Barnabas and Paul, leaving the final decision or judgment to James.
Patrick continues, "Peter strides through the first fifteen chapters of Acts performing miracles, ordaining other bishops and deacons . . . personally welcoming the converted Saul into the Church, planting churches that flourish even to this day, etc., etc."
Regarding the ordaining of deacons in Acts 6, it was the twelve who called the multitude of the disciples to them asking them to select seven men, "whom we will appoint." There is no suggestion of Peter's ordaining, or appointing them by himself.
Peter did not ordain one bishop in the book of Acts. Where are the churches he planted? Regarding Peter's "personally welcoming Saul," Acts 9:26 says, "And when Saul was come to Jerusalem, he assayed to join himself to the disciples: but they were all afraid of him, and believed not that he was a disciple.
It was Barnabas who introduced Saul to the Apostles (Acts 9:27).
Patrick must, of course, repeat the tradition of the Church that state Peter was crucified in Rome upside down, was buried on what eventually became Vatican Hill, where the popes reign.
Patrick states that the argument, "Peter was no pope, he had no special authority, he was just one of the group" is pure fiction.
The Bible says that he was demonstrated not to have appointed clergy, which is the prerogative of the Pope. He did not promulgate the decisions of the Jerusalem Council. He had no spiritual insight to recognize God's man, Saul (later, Paul) as the one to whom the Gospel to the uncircumcised would be committed.
He makes a big deal about the keys (Matthew 16:19), but a Bible student can easily see that Peter used those keys, in Acts 2 to open the door of the Kingdom to the Jews and in Acts 10 to the Gentiles. After keys open a door, they are of no use unless a door is subsequently locked again.
The door to salvation was opened, and has never been locked. "Whosoever will may come" is the Bible promise.
Patrick tries, as do many Catholic theologians, to have a parallel between Peter and Eliakim (Isaiah 22:15-25).
However, historically, the promises made to Eliakim did not become actual in the Papacy. In verse 23, God said he will fasten Ekliakim as a nail in a sure place, and yet we know that the Vatican had to endure their Babylonian Captivity in France for 70 years.
Eliakim would be for a glorious throne and, while the Catholic Church has had a string of "good" popes with the possible exception of Pius XII and his treatment of the Jews (see page 7, this issue), the history of the Papacy has been far from glorious, and even Catholic scholars admit there have been bad popes. One writer said there were three; I would suggest three hundred years of evil popes, but even if there were only one, the throne would cease to be glorious.
This is merely clutching at another straw to promote the Papacy - the most evil institution ever established that, without even taking into account the murders, adulteries and intrigues that are not infrequent in the history of the popes, has kept multitudes of people in the bondage of Satan's darkness.
The Catholic Church brags about having so many members; the pope should hand his head in shame at the thought of not only usurping the name with which our dear Lord addressed His Father (Holy Father - John 17:11), but being in league with God's arch-enemy, Satan, in keeping the Gospel message from those people.
Read the touching story of Anne Askew and remember it was the power of the papacy that caused this sweet innocent girl to suffer the torture of the rack, and a martyr's death.
With all your verbage, Patrick, your first point is not biblically proved. (More later)