The (Catholic) Church: Infallibility, Succession, and the Papacy
by Gabriel

The Clergy: Deacons, Priests, and Bishops

It is first necessary to what components, or authorities, that the "Church" is made up of. The three positions held in the Clergy are Deacon, Priest, and Bishop, in authoritivly respective order. One of the most important things to note about the Clergy is that no member of the Clergy is self-appointed. There's a rigorous selection process, a long and demanding formal education, and constant discipline to separate the real vocations from matters of personal opinion.

People are made Clergy through the Sacrament of Holy Orders. A Bishop, a direct successor of the apostles (see Succession), lays hands upon a person who has worked to become Clergy. This holy laying of hands completes a person's initiation into the Clergy. Holy Orders can ordain a deacon, a priest, or a bishop. Bishops are the highest order of Clergy, and thus they cannot be appointed. Bishops hold authority over a certain area of the world, and this area is called a diocese. The larger areas, such as New York city, Philadelphia, or Rome, are called archdioceses simply because of their size. Thus, the bishops that hold authority over these areas are recognized as archbishops. Keep in mind that archbishops ARE bishops, and the difference is merely in the given name.

However, bishops need assistants to take care of matters in smaller towns and rural areas in their diocese. And so they ordain Priests. Priests are the elders of the Church mentioned in the Bible, called presbyters, and are ordained by the bishops to celebrate the Eucharist and administer the other sacraments, except Confirmation and Holy Orders.

Phillipians 1:1 mentions bishops and deacons, but not priests. The dioconate is a genuine, permanent order; the deacon associates with Christ in his own right and has Sacramental powers, as Pope Pius XII put it in 1947. You can't get married after you receive the diaconate, but you can be already married when you do. The title of deacon comes from the Greek word for "servant" or "helper", and we know that the Apostles had them (Acts 6:1-7, 1 Tim 3:12-13). Then as now, they assisted at liturgies, supervising and signaling the conduct of the faithful and giving the dismissal, and they can baptize, preach, and distribute the Eucharist if they have express permission from the bishop.

What about the pope? The pope, in definition, is a bishop, the archbishop of Rome. He falls under the same realm as all other bishops do, but as the successor of Peter, he has special God-given gifts not given to other specific bishops.

Succession of The Apostles

In order to have established the bishops as direct successors of the apostles, we must give evidence for their ability to succeed. But first we must ask, "What what so special about the apostles?" The most prominent ability of the apostles is to "forgive" sins, which is commonly referred to by Catholics today as the Sacrament of Reconciliation (for more information on the Sacrament, see my apology on Reconciliation). If the apostles could indeed aid in the forgiveness of sins, and if the successors of the apostles had the same powers as the apostles themselves, then the current successors, the bishops, should have the ability to aid in the forgiveness of sins as well.

The apostles and Church Leaders describe themselves as "ambassadors for Christ" in II Corinthians 5:20. The Bible tells us that God is working directly through the apostles, appealing to the people through the apostles, also in II Corinthians 5:20. Furthermore, we must note that in II Corinthians 5:18-20, the apostles (specifically Paul and Barnabus) are commanding the Church members to be reconciled to God through themselves. If all people of the Church were ambassadors of Christ, then there would be no need for the Church members to be reconciled through the Church leaders, the apostles. Rather, the Church  members could simply be reconciled to God through themselves. And so we must deduct that the Church Leaders, the apostles and their successors, were and are "ambassadors for Christ" while regular Church member Christians are usually not.

Some would argue with this point, saying that the "us" in II Corinthians 5:18-20 means all of the Christians of the Church rather than the apostles and the Church Leaders, their successors. This argument breaks down in verse 20 where Paul says "This makes us ambassadors for Christ, God as it were appealing through us. We implore you, in Christ's name: be reconciled to God!" Paul is speaking at first in first person using "us" to describe who he is talking about. Suddenly, he gives a command to the Church in Corinth, whom he is writing to, using the word "you." This means that in this passage "us" and "you" are two different groups of people, and therefore the "us" cannot be the Church members, because the "you" are the Church members.

Even more so, in John 20:21-23, Christ breathes upon the apostles and nobody else, and directly after His breathing He tells the apostles that if they forgive sins of any, they are forgiven them, and if they retain the sins of any, they are retained. Again, an important example of the powers and privileges invested in the apostles solely by Christ Himself.

Having established the special "powers" invested into the apostles by Christ that ordinary Christians do not have, we must determine whether or not the apostles' successors, the Church leaders, can inherit these powers. The first step to reaching a conclusion would be to search the Bible for an instance in which someone succeeds an apostle. One such instance is found. When Christ went to recruit His disciples, the apostles, He recruited twelve, including Judas Iscariot, the betrayer. Judas was an apostle, and as an apostle was chosen and specialized by Christ. Peter describes Judas as a vital part of the discipleship when he says, "for he was numbered with us and obtained a part in this ministry." (Acts 1:17). Acts 1:15-26 is the story of the apostles choosing a successor, a replacement, for Judas, sho had by then killed himself. The possible successors were narrowed down to two: Justus and Matthias. The apostles prayed vigorously to the Lord and after this prayer and undoubtedly divine guidance, they chose Matthias. "And he was numbered with the eleven apostles" (verse 26). Matthias was described as numbered with the eleven, just as Judas was described the same way. Matthias had become an actual replacement of Judas, and hence, a successor of the apostle Judas.

Paul, an apostle, chooses Timothy to be one of his successors. He transfers his apostleship to Timothy through His teaching in his letters to Timothy (1 & 2 Timothy), and thereby practices Holy Orders in appointing Timothy a bishop. And so the story goes. Apostles are chosen by Christ, apostles, as ambassadors for Christ, choose successors, and these successors, as ambassadors of the apostles and in turn, Christ, choose successors of themselves, and the chain continues to this very day. In this modern day, throughout the ages the Catholic Church has continued to appoint successors and the current day bishops are actual successors of the apostles themselves, and have become ambassadors for Christ, inheriting the same powers of the apostles, including the ministry of reconciliation.

Peter as the Prime Apostle

So then the question arises, "Isn't the Pope, as the successor of an apostle, the same as every other bishop?" The answer, of course, is no. One apostle was given power above the other apostles, and acted as the rest of the apostles' leader. That apostle was the first Pope, and was ordained as the first Pope by Christ Himself. That apostle is the prime apostle; that apostle is Simon Peter, the Rock.

Throughout the New Testament, Peter can be seen as the leader of the Church and the "Chosen" apostle by Christ. The prominence of his name is quite obvious, and immediately leads us to accept the primacy of Peter. The Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles are the books looked to to investigate the Church foundation and formation. The letters of Paul are letters to the Churches that have already been established. From the Gospels and the Acts, we find that Peter's name is mentioned an astonishing 195 times. The next most prominent apostle is James, whose name is mentioned 29 times, a number that pales in comparison with that of Peter's. In fact, if you add up the number of times every apostle's name besides Peter's is mentioned in the Gospels and Acts, the sum will still fall short of Peter's 195, mustering only a number of 130.

Matthew 10:2 begins to list the apostles, saying, "first, Simon, who is called Peter..." The Greek word for "first" that is used here is protos, which when translated does not refer to the numerical "first", but the ranking "first", or "chief, prime." And so when Matthew lists the apostles, he recognizes Peter as the chief, the prime, apostle. Furthermore, Peter is always expressed as the leading apostle. He, along with Andrew, is the first disciple called by Jesus (Mark 1:16, Mat 4:18). Jesus permitted no one except PETER and the sons of Zebedee to follow Him into the house of the ruler of the synagogue (Mark 5:37). Peter plays a major role in the miraculous catch of fish in his net (Luke 5:1). Peter's faith allows him to walk on water toward Jesus (Matthew 14:28). Peter also prominently speaks for the rest of the disciples. He told Jesus that the disciple had left everything to follow Him (Luke 12:41). Peter alone, but for the rest of the disciples, promises to be loyal to the Master (Mark 14:29). Peter along with John is directed by Jesus to prepare the Passover (Luke 22:8). Peter is regarded by outsiders as a special representative of the disciples (Mat 17:24). Peter and those with him are used to designate a group of apostles (Mark 1:36, Luke 9:32, Luke 8:45). The word of the angel spoke, telling the woman at the tomb to go tell the disciples and Peter that Jesus goes before them to Galilee (John 20:4). Peter speaks for all the disciples (Mark 11:21.) And Christ first appears to Peter after the resurrection (Luke 24:34, 1 Corin 15:5).

The Bible also makes it clear that Peter was not only the leader of the Apostles, but of the entire Christian Church. Acts 1:15, Acts 2:14, Acts 3:1-12, Acts 4:8-12, Acts 5:1-5, Acts 5:3-10, Acts 5:15, Acts 8:14-15, Acts 8:20-24, Acts 10:1-48, and Acts 11:18 all imply Peter's leadership in the Early Church. 

It is also clear that Peter became a symbol for Christian living and thought. He is portrayed as having many different roles in the life of the Church. Modern New Testament scholars speak of a trajectory of Biblical images of Peter. It begins with Peter as the great Christian fisherman (Luke 5, John 21), then as a shepard, or pastor, of the flock (John 21), then as the Christian martyr (John 13:36; 1 Peter 5:1), then as the receiver of special revelation (Mark 9:2-8, parallel 2 Peter 1:16-18), then as the confessor of true faith (Matthew 16:16-17), and as its guardian against false teaching (2 Peter 1:20-21), and of course, as the repentant sinner.

Reading the New Testament thoroughly, we find it irrevocably true that Peter was the prime apostle. All you have to do to recognize this is to read the New Testament. You will acknowledge Peter's primacy.

Christ Appoints Peter as First Pope

Some people are very confused about the exact powers and role of the Pope. Many do not understand what the Pope does or is that is so special. Sure, the Pope lives in a fancy, ancient town and is adorned in fabulous white robes and carries many prayer beads and old wooden staffs and even has imperial guards and a crown, but what in the Catholic Faith is so special about him? To know exactly what gifts and authority Christ has given the Pope, a man must simply turn to Peter, the first pope, and the Biblical recording of Christ's commission to him:

Matthew 16:15-19
<15> He [Christ] said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
<16> Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God."
<17> Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in Heaven. <18>And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. <19> And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven."

This is the main passage on which the Papacy is founded and established. Christ asks Peter who Peter thinks He is. Peter responds with his famous confession of faith, saying "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God." Then Christ pours down upon Peter, rapidly naming Peter's new authorities and gifts. First, Christ Himself blesses Peter. Then, Christ acknowledges the fact that God the Father Himself reveals Truth to Peter. Next, Christ changes Peter's name from Simon to Peter, Peter being tied to the Greek word petros, meaning "rock." Then Christ announces that He will build His Church upon Peter, and the gates of Hades, the original cause of evil, shall not prevail against the Church. Christ proceeds to give the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven directly to Peter. Christ gives these keys, which He formerly owned, to Peter and no one else. And last and most importantly, Christ gives Peter the ability to bind on Earth what is bound in Heaven, and loose on Earth what is loosed in Heaven. As you can see, in this passage Peter is overwhelmed with Spiritual gifts.

The important part of interpreting this passage is to find who or what is the "rock" on which Christ's Church is built. It may seem obvious at first that the Church was built upon Peter himself, considering his name means rock. But some Protestants would dare, and ignorantly so, to differ. So before we go on, let us eliminate the three main arguments of opponents of Peter's Papacy.

The Arguments Against the Commission---Refuted

1) The first opposition is from a lingual perspective. Some will claim that the word for Peter in Greek has a different meaning than the word for rock in Greek. The word used in the original Greek text for "Peter" is petros, and the word used for rock is petra. These opponents will claim that petros' meaning is different from that of petra's meaning. In ancient Greek poetry (which the Bible was not written in), petros meant a small portion of rock or a stone, while petra meant a large rock or boulder. They claim that this type of poetic literature was used in the Bible or in this passage, and that because petra has a different meaning than that of Peter's name, the Church could not have been built upon Peter. This argument is a very bad one because it can be beaten 3 different ways. First and most importantly, the author of Matthew needed and had to show a change in words. Why? Because petra is feminine, and he could not have used a feminine word like "petra" to describe Peter, who was masculine. And so he used the masculine form of petra, which is petros. Second of all, although the Bible was written in Greek, Christ spoke Aramaic-- that is commonly recognized by scholars around the world. As if Christ knew that people might use this loose argument, he says in John 1:42 to Simon, "Thou art Simon the son of Jona; thou shalt be called Cephas." Cephas is the Aramaic term for rock, and was derived from petros. And amazingly, there is no gender term for cephas; it is neutral. Cephas, whenever and however it is used, means rock. And so in the original language, Christ was saying, "you are Rock and on this Rock I will build my Church." The rock in the passage, when taken from a correct lingual perspective, blatantly points to Peter, and means the same as Peter's name. Thirdly, if the writer wanted to clearly convey the fact that Peter's name was different from the rock on which Christ would build His Church, he would have used the word lithos to describe Peter, which means "stone." This argument practically defeats itself when you get into the true linguistics, and is recognized as faulty by the more knoweldgeable Biblical scholars.

2) The second argument against Peter's papacy is that the "rock" in this passage refers not to Peter, but to Christ. At first, this argument probably seems ridiculous. It is. Nonetheless, some people, to avoid the Papacy, use it. Nowhere near this passage is Christ referred to as the rock. And yet one sentence before Christ's statement, He gives Peter the title of the rock. And also in John 1:24, He gives Peter the title of the rock. It is only ignorant to claim that the rock is Christ and not Peter, who was just before given the name "rock." Furthermore, the word used for "this" in "this rock" in Greek is tautee, which is closer to "this very" or "this same" than simply "this." In fact, certain Bible translations do indeed use "this very" or "this same" to represent tautee in this passage. Grammatically, to find out which object the word "this" is referring to, we go back to the closest object/referent. The closest object/referent here is undoubtedly "Peter". And so in a grammatical sense, the verse actually reads, "you are Peter(rock) and on this same rock I will build my Church." The verse unmistakably correlates Peter with the rock upon which Christ will build His Church.

3) The third argument against the foundation of the Papacy is that the "rock" in this passage refers to Peter's confession of Faith. This argument makes the most sense, although it too is weak in light of the opposing evidence. Those who use this argument will most likely argue that a person's confession of faith is what makes them a Christian, and in turn, what makes them a part of Christ's Church. They argue that it is upon this rock of confession of faith that people become part of God's Church. This argument, although sensible, also has the largest amount of evidence against it. First of all, and very importantly, we must note that Peter had recognized Christ as Lord far before this passage. Luke 5:8 reads, "When Simon Peter saw it, he fell down at Jesus' knees, saying, "Depart from me, for I am a sinful man, O Lord!"" Simon Peter made this confession of faith directly before being recruited as a disciple. He clearly recognized Christ as Lord and somewhat as the Forgiver of Sins. And so the confession alone could not have been what the Church was to be built on, because there had been at least one former confession of Faith. Secondly, what Peter did in this passage is definitely not enough to become part of God's Church. Peter said, "You are the Christ, Son of the Living God." But it is obvious that merely believing this won't get you salvation. Lucifer, the fallen angel, the embodiment of Satan himself believes that Christ was the Son of the Living God, but we definitely don't regard Lucifer as a member of Christ's Church. And so it is in serious error to presume Peter's confession of Faith to be the rock upon which Christ's Church was built. 

This is not to say, however, that Christ and Peter's confession are not also, in a way, rocks upon which the Church is built.Christ is definitely a foundation of the Church (cf. 1 Corin 3:12) as is a confession of the Christian Faith. Even the Catechism, as well as numerous Early Church Fathers, equate Peter, Christ, and Peter's Confession with foundational rocks of the Church. What cannot be denied, however, is that Peter was and is indeed a rock upon which the Church is built. Hence, the Papacy plays a necessary role in Christ's Church.

Peter as the First Pope and Shepherd of God's Flock

Looking upon the Papacy, we find that when studied thoroughly, it is not something based upon one passage of Scripture, but something intertwined with the systematic theology represented by the entire Bible. The Papacy's basis is vigorously expressed throughout all of the Holy Scriptures, and its principles are presented inside every great part of God's infallible Word. And so let us first turn to the Old Testament, where we can find traces of Papal principles even in the age of Abraham, and the prophecies and nature of God in His word are at full compliance with the Papacy.

There is an interesting theme that runs throughout much of the Bible. This theme is an important and vital part of the Papacy's fundamentals. Let's look at Genesis 17:5:

<5> Neither shall thy name any more be called Abram, but thy name shall be Abraham; for a father of many nations I have made thee.

Here, God changes Abram's name to Abraham before changing his mission, bestowing upon Abraham a greater covenant and title, for as his name changes, he has become father of many nations. He reaches, upon this change in name, a greater place in authority. And God again practices this in Genesis 32:28, which reads as follows:

<28> And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.

Here again, a name change indicates a change in mission and in authority. Abram's name was changed to Abraham, and with it he was entitled a father with nations and the father of peoples. Jacob's name was changed to Israel, and with it he was entitled a prince with power and leader of men with God. It is ignorant and in error to say that the name change from Simon to Peter does not indicate an uprising in authority and a change in mission. To say this would be to protest against God's nature itself, which is unacceptable in Christianity. It only makes sense that Peter, in correlation with his name change by God, was also to partake in a bestowance of authority and fatherhood or leadership over a certain area of people. Matthew 16:18 makes it clear that Peter was to be the leader and father of the Church in Christ, just as Abraham was the father of nations and Jacob the leader of men with God.

As if God wanted us to know the Truth exactly, and not to stumble over it or misinterpret it, He established another astonishing similarity between the characters of Abraham and of Peter. They were both referred to as rock! Peter's references are obvious, as we have already pointed them out. Abraham too, however, is referred to as a rock. Isaiah 51:1-2 reads, "...Look to the rock from which you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from which you were dug. Look to Abraham your father..." Once again, as Abraham was the rock, father, and leader of God's Nations, Peter is the rock, father, and leader of God's Church. Christ evidently presented these astonishing similarities in identity between Abraham and Peter in a way that in recognizing God's nature, it is absolutely false to say that Peter could not have been the father, leader or rock of God's Church.

Christ constantly reinforces His trust in Simon Peter by giving him more and more commands to rule and watch over His Church. In Luke 22:31-32, Christ commands Peter, and Peter alone, to "strengthen your brethren" in Faith and in Christ. This verse portrays the leading position of Peter, as he is to watch over others and to aid to those under him, strengthening them that they might become as strong in their faith as Peter in his.

Christ again commands Peter's obligation to serve as Church leader in John 21:15-17, where Christ commands Peter to "tend to His sheep and feed His lambs":

So when they had eaten breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Feed My Lambs." He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" He said to Him, "Yes Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Tend My sheep." He said to him a third time, "Simon, son of Jonah, do you love me?" Peter was grieved the third time because He had said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You." Jesus said to him, "Feed My sheep."

Here, Christ transmits the role of shepherd to Peter. In a very real way, Christ hands all of his sheep over to the guidance of Peter. The sheep and lambs in this passage obviously refer to God's followers (See John 10:11). Remember that these sheep do not include simply a fold of the flock, but the entire flock of Christians (cf. John 10:16). Therefore, Christ is commanding that Peter be a shepherd over Christ's flock, and that Peter, as the shepherd and thereby leader, would guide the followers of Christ, the sheep and lambs, into Truth and meaning with God. This passage is giving tremendous authority to Peter, because, like the title of Rock, the role of the shpeherd was never before given to anyone except God Himself. Hence, when Peter received the responsibilities and powers of the Church's Shepherd, he was receiving more than just a leadership over the laity-- he was given power not given to any other bishop, priest, or deacon.

The Pharisees and Peter

An interesting correlation often drawn by scholars is that of Peter and the Pharisees. Vital to the idea are Christ's words recorded in Matthew 23:2-3: "The Scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat: therefore, whatsoever they bid you observe and do; but not ye after their works: for they say, and do not." Just as Moses was the definitive authority of God's chosen people in the Old Testament (see Deut 17:8-12), so too were the Pharisees the definitive religious authorities in Christ's day. For, even according to Christ, they sit in the seat of Moses himself.

The power and God-given authorities of the Pharisees can be seen clearly in the high preist Caiaphas: "And one of them , named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them... And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation." (John 11:49,51). Here we see that Caiaphas, "being the high priest" spoke not of his own authroity, but for God. This is indeed resemblant of the office of the Papacy. The author of Matthew is clear in emphasizing the importance of Caiaphus' religious authority. Twice he makes note that that Caiaphus' power is a result of his position, which was "being the high priest." One must realize the fact that even in Christ's day, an office very much like today's Papacy existed: that of the Pharisees.

Christ also tells us, implicitly, that the Pharisees held the keys to the kingdom of heaven: "But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men..." (Matthew 23:13). This same authority, that of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, was later given by Christ to Peter (Mat 16:19). And so the power and authorities of the Pharisees, which were given by God, were taken from them by God and passed on by God to Peter. Hence, Peter now sits in the seat of Moses, and Peter, like Caiaphus, speaks not of himself, but for God Himself.

The Infallibility of Peter and his Church

The Catholic Church today makes the claim that they are infallible when speaking of matters of faith and morals. This may seem to be an extreme claim when first heard of, but Biblically, it is not, and Traditionally, it is heavily agreed with. We first need to realize the significant difference between infallibility and impeccability. The doctrine of infallibility is that which states then when speaking or writing ex cathedra, the Pope, aided by Divine guidance, may clarify or declare a doctrine without error. When does the pope speak "ex cathedra"? The conditions which determine when a pope is speaking ex cathedra are as follows:

1. He is speaking or writing as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith.
2. His speech or writing takes the form of a definitive act.
3. He is speaking or writing about the proclamation of a doctrine of faith or morals.

If the pope, in his speech or writing, fulfills the aforesaid conditions, he is to be considered infallible in his teaching. This doctrine of infallibility nowhere states that the pope cannot sin or err morally. If the pope was without sin, he would defy the very human nature each person inherits upon birth. Furthermore, if the pope was without sin, then he would need no Savior, and we know by the Bible that all people need a Savior. Indeed, if the pope was without sin, he would have achieved impeccability, and this would not be human.

The New Testament makes the infallible authority of the Church Authorities clear. We turn to Hebrews 13:7, 17:

<7> Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow... <17> Obey them that have rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch your souls.  

There is no Protestant hierarchy that even claims this kind of authority, yet the true Church, as a mirror of the original, apostolic Church, must posses it. This soul-watching power must have existed since the beginning of the Church, and if a true Church exists, they too will claim the power of a leader whose faith the faithful shall follow, and who watches over the souls of the Church. Only one such hierarchy makes this claim, and that is the Catholic Magisterium. It also just so happens that the Catholic Church is the only Church that has existed since the beginning, possessing an unbroken line of popes and bishops, all direct successors of the apostles, the pope of Peter. Many would dare to say that this verse and those similar to it relate to all authority, not just religious authority. However, the Biblical basis for this argument does not exist. First of all, in the above verse, we are commanded to follow the authority in their faith. This alone should be enough to allow its readers to knoe that the authority the verse speaks of is religious. To add, let's go to Jude 11:

<11> Woe to them! For they have gone in the way of Cain, have run greedily into the error of Balaam for profit, and perished in the rebellion of Korah.

Earlier in the context (v 8), Jude condemns the practice of "rejecting authority." This group of those who rejected this authority was known as the Nicolaitans. The Nicolaitans were constantly condemned in the Bible. In addition to verse 8 of Jude, the Nicolaitans were condemned in Revelation 2:6,14, and 20. As seen, those who reject this authority spoken of in Jude 8 were acting against the Church and against God. And of course, the Bible itself condemns them. And so the question arises, what is this authority? If the authority is governmental or civil, then it would appear that there is nothing wrong with rejecting Church authority (the Catholic magisterium). But if this authority is religious or ecclesiastical, then one may find himself in a state of contradicting the Bible and sin by rejecting this authority (the Catholic Magisterium.) The rebellion against this authority is clarified in the above verse, Jude 11, as "the rebellion of Korah." To find out what Korah was, we must go back to Numbers 16:1-3. In this verse we find that a man named Korah took mean and they rose up against Moses and Aaron, the religious authority of the time saying "You take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: why then do you lift yourselves up above the congregation of the Lord?" Korah and his group of men had revolted against Moses and Aaron, saying that they unfairly rose themselves up above the rest of the Church authorities. They thought that there should not be a religious authority to govern them. They thought that Moses and Aaron had raised themselves up above the rest without God's permission just to have authority over them. However, this was not the case. As a result of this revolt against the Church leaders, Korah and his men were severely and divinely punished. Numbers 16:32 tells us that "the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them up, and their households and all the men with Korah, and all their goods." And so we see that the authority spoekn of in Jude 8 is purely religious and ecclesiastical, and that it is a sin to oppose this authority, at one time punished by death by God.

Christ promised Peter that Hades, the cause of evil, would not prevail against the Church. We can rightfully assume that if the Church teaches a false or erred doctrine or teaching, then Hades has prevailed against the Church. It thereby must be concluded that because Hades cannot prevail against the Church, the Church cannot teach false doctrines or portray Truth that contradicts God's Word. Hereby we can deduct that because the Church is God's Church and Hades cannot prevail against it, it must be infallible.

The New Testament also promises the Church Truth. We turn to 1 Timothy 3:15c:

<15>...the Church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the Truth.

Here we can make similar deductions. Because the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth, the upholder of the Truth, it will not stop being Truth. If the Church ceases to continue to teach Truth, it can no longer be God's Church, because it is no longer the pillar and ground of the Truth. Hereby, because the Church is the pillar and ground of the Truth and cannot stop teaching Truth, we conclude that it must be infallible.

The New Testament is even bold enough to declare the Church without blemish. We read Ephesians 5:27:

<27> that He [Christ] might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such things, but that she should be holy and without blemish.

Even if the above verse does not give the Pope infalliibilty, it shows that in at least one way the Church is without spot or wrinkle; it is holy and without blemish; and from this a logical deduction is that the Church teaches no error, and thereby is infallible. And if the Church teaches no error, and the Church is, of course, eternal, we conclude from this verse that the Church must be infallible.

Furthermore, without holding some sort of doctrine of ecclesiastical infallibility, Christ's promise in John 16:13 makes practically no sense at all. "But when He comes, the Spirit of Truth, He will guide you into all Truth." The Spirit referred to here is almost definitely the Holy Spirit. But notice that the Spirit will guide the Church into ALL Truth. All former attempts to undermine the importance of this passage as related to the doctrine of infallibility has failed. Here, Christ is promising the Church ALL Truth. Not just Truth about salvation, but ALL Truth. What's interesting is that, in this promise, Christ uses a different title for the Holy Spirit. He refers to the Holy Spirit as the Spirit of Truth because He is promising a certain action of the Holy Spirit-- to guide the Church into all Truth. We know, of course, that not all Christians are able to teach ALL Truth. And so this action of the Holy Spirit (guidance into ALL Truth) is reserved only for specific Christians (those with the power to bind and loose, the Pope and the college of bishops). And this very guidance into all Truth by the Holy Spirit is a strong foundation for the doctrine of infallibility.

Christ promised to Peter that "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, an whatever you bind on Earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in Heaven." The Greek word used for "you" in both parts of this verse is singular, which means this power of binding and loosing is given to Peter, and no one else. Matthew 18:8 proceeds to give this power of binding and loosing to the rest of the apostles, but notice that the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" are given specifically to Peter. Now it is time for a short cultural/history lesson. Binding and loosing (Hebrew asar ve-hittar) are the Rabbinical terms for "forbidding and permitting." The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. In this way, the apostles inherited the teaching powers of the Rabbis and Pharisees, who had made standards and set forth doctrines in the Jewish religion. It is thereby reasonable to assume that now, the apostles and their successors have that same ability; the ability to make standards and set forth doctrines in Christianity, and do it with full agreement by God in Christ.

And finally, and most importantly of all, the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" come into play. Let us first recognize that these keys were originally possesed by Christ Himself, and that the keys were given by Christ to Peter. At this point, Peter actually posessed the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Never before this event had the keys belonged to anyone but Christ himself. And so Peter alone on Earth held the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Again, let us look back upon ancient history. In the Old Testament  Egyptian kingdoms, the highest position was the king himself. The next highest was a person who's rank was known as the "key keeper." Joseph of the Old Testament was the key keeper of the Pharaoh in his time. Pharaoh describes Joseph's rank in Genesis 41:40, saying, "Thou shalt be over my house, and according unto thy word shall all my people be ruled: only in the throne will I be greater than thou." The keys to the house of the Pharaoh were given to Joseph, and with them the authority to rule over the people in the king's name, ruling the kingdom under the Pharaoh's authority and proclaiming the Pharaoh's message throughout his kingdom. This glorious position of key keeper was given to Peter, who was the key keeper of God, on earth. And thus, God reveals Truth through Peter, the pope, so that by God's divine Word, he might rule over God's Kingdom and proclaim God's Truth.

The Apostolic Church implicitly practiced infallibility. In Acts 15:28, in a letter from the Apostles and presbyters of the Church to Antioch, we find that the apostles claim the guidance of the Holy Spirit in their letter to the Church. "It is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of us not to place upon you any burden beyond these necessities..." Let it be known that this letter to Antioch was a judicial statement defining moral actions. In this passage, the Church Magisterium claims guidance from the Holy Spirit in their making of a decision. Although far from explicit, and a bit blurry as of yet, this passage shows us the extremely early beginnings of the raw basics of infallibility.

But did the early Church Fathers agree with the fierce doctrine of infallibility? The Truth is, the Early Church Fathers has not explicitly defined infallibility, nor did they explicitly teach it. But we do find that the rudimentary principles of infallibility were understood by the Early Church Fathers. The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as" the first step towards papal domination." (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. This is very compliant with the basics of the doctrine of infallibility.

A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love". The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connexion with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (3:3:2) he brings against the Gnostic sects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes: " Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally known Church, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree -- that is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere." One may even be surpised to find such a clear testimony of Roman supremacy and basic infallibility in such an early text. As the years went on, Papal Supremacy and infallibility became more and more recognized and defined. This is not to say that the doctrine of infallibility changed-- but it was merely further clarified throughout the ages.

Papal Succession, the Passing on of the Keys

The wonderful position of the pope and glorious seat of key keeper makes no difference to us whatsoever unless people succeed Peter and inherit the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. It is imperative for modern theology that it be shown that the current pope, as the successor of Peter, also inherits the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and their imposed authority.

Because Christ made the astonishing reference to the Old Testament key keeper, it is only sensible to observe how the keys and key keeper of an Old Testament kingdom worked and what they did. Keeping in mind this idea, let us turn to Isaiah 22:15-23:

<15> Thus says the Lord God of hosts:
"Go, proceed to this steward,
To Shebna, who is over the house, and say:
<16> 'What have you here, and whom have you here,
That you have hewn a sepulcher here,
As he who hews himself a sepulcher on high,
Who carves a tomb for himself in a rock?
<17> Indeed, the Lord will throw you away violently,
O mighty man,
And will surely seize you.
<18> He will surely turn violenetly and toss you like a ball
Into a large country;
There you shall die, and there your glorious chariots
Shall be the shame of your master's house.
<19> So I will drive you out of your office,
And from your position He will pull you down.
<20> 'Then it shall be in that day,
That I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah;
<21> I will clothe him with your robe
And strengthen him with your belt;
I will commit your responsibility into his hand.
He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem
And to the house of Judah.
<22> The key of the house of David
I will lay on his shoulder;
So he shall open, and no one shall shut;
And he shall shut, and no one shall open.
<23> I will fasten his as a peg in a secure place,
And he will become a glorious throne to his father's house.

Here, the prophet Isaiah is commanded by God to go and prophesize to Shebna, who is described with great authority. He is describes as "over the house" and a "mighty man." But the passage makes it clear that Shebna is not the king of the house when it describes him as about to become the shame of his master's house, which obviously means there is someone in rank before him. We can intelligently assume by now that Shebna holds an important part in the kingdom, but is not the king; most likely second to the king. The prophet then goes on to describe how the Lord will pull Shebna down from his position (v. 19) and replace him with Eliakim. In fact, the passage clarifies further when it sepcifically states that Shebna's responsibility, his position, will be handed over to Eliakim (v. 21) and with it Shebna's power and glory. Next, the passage reveals the position of Shebna and his house. In verse 22, Isaiah states that God will take the key of the house of David, which obviously formerly belonged to Shebna, and lay it upon Eliakim's shoulder. In this verse, it is evident that the position of key keeper, a high position second only to the king in his throne, is passed, along with the keys themselves, from Shebna to Eliakim. And next, in an absolutely amazing similarity to Peter and the apostles, God grants Eliakim the ability to "shut so that no one will open, and open so that no one will shut." Such an amazing resemblance is made to the apostles' power of "binding on Earth what is bound in Heaven, and loosing on Earth what is loosed in Heaven" that one must consider the possibility, if not the probability, of both powers being the same. And finally, as if to bind (pun intended) the verse with the seal of the Papacy, verse 23 states that Eliakim will become a glorious throne to his father's house, just as the pope is a glorious throne who is key keeper to his Father in Heaven, God.

It is ignorant to say that when Christ gave authority to Peter in Matthew 16, he was not drawing similarities from Old Testament instances like this one. We see in this passage that the keys to the Kingdom of David are passed down by God to Shebna's successor, Eliakim, and it is only reasonable to conclude that the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven can be passed down by God to the successor of Peter.

Besides the undeniable Biblical evidence for Papal succession, the common sense behind Papal succession is overwhelming. If Christ established a Church through Peter and granted Peter a blessing, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, and binding and loosing abilities, why would Christ limit these amazing ecclesiastical gifts to the mere lifespan of Peter? Indeed, Christ, in His infinite wisdom, would have meant for His Church to live on, and with it the authority it has on Earth, the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. This is totally consistent with His promises. He promises that He will be with the apostles always, even to the end of age (Matthew 28:20). Even if this is interpreted to mean everyone, and not just the apostles, Christ's perpetual presence and guidance in the Church is still clearly taught.

The Pope's Rather Bold Names: "Vicar of Christ" and "Holy Father"

Many people will often claim that the pope's nicknames are heretical and blasphemous, saying that no one can be left in the place of Christ and that no one should be called "father" other than the Father in Heaven, much less "Holy." However, the nicknames used by the Pope actually orginated from the Bible and Apostolic Tradition, and have been used for quite a long time. 

The name "Vicar of Christ" actually means "in the place of Christ." This resembles the pope's position of key keeper to God, as God grants him Truth and commands him to rule over His people on religious accounts. The argument against this name is that nobody can be in the place of Christ, and that anyone who uses this name is blaspheming God's name. Some would even go as far to say that by using this name one exalts himself to God's level. The truth is, the name is not one held with an air of superiority to God, it is one held in reverance and service to God. And the name is Biblically inferred.

John 13:20
Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that receiveth whomsoever I send receiveth me; and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 

Having established that God sent the Pope as His key keeper, we can draw from this verse that "he that receiveth the pope receiveth Christ," and in this very manner the pope can accurately be referred to as a vicar of Christ, being that he is sent by God.

Many also have a problem with the pope's nickname, "Holy Father." They will say that nobody should be called Father except the one Father in Heaven, and that nobody can be Holy except God Himself. However, the Bible disgrees with them. The Bible makes it unmistakeably clear that people can be Holy.

Ephesians 3:5
Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;

( See also Mark 6:20, Luke 1:70, Acts 3:21).The Bible in many cases refers to certain people as "father" as well. Luke 16:24 and Romans 4:1 both explicitly call Abraham a father, even though Abraham is not the biological father of anyone in the New Testament. No, there is nothing wrong with calling people father's in a spiritual sense. It is when you view them as the father, as in the Father in Heaven, when the word "Father" becomes a problem. Paul, the great evangelist, tells his Church members that he is a father to them.

1 Corinthians 4:14-15
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructers in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

We conclude thereby that both the nicknames "Vicar of Christ" and "Holy Father" are morally admissible and even Biblical, and are suiting for the description of the pope.

Conclusion

And thus we end this apology by recognizing the apostles as ambassadors of Christ, Peter as the prime apostle, Peter as the Rock on which Christ built His Church, Peter as the first infallible pope, and all of the popes in their unbroken chain of succession as actual successors of Peter and inherents of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and as the Key Keepers of God, who can be referred to as Vicars of Christ and holy Fathers.

And we teach all of this in the name our Lord God, Father, Son, and Spirit, through the Catholic Church, which has taught Truth unchanged since the beginning.

Peace and Prayer,
Gabriel