Habemus Papam I – Introduction

The Roman Catholic Church is much like any other human society. As with any other society, there must be one authority which has the final say in any question, and upon which responsibility rests. Without such an authority there is chaos (see modern Somalia for a secular society without a supreme authority, or modern Islam for a religious society without a supreme authority). As Frank Sheed has said:

Ordinary human experience shows that in any society, the need for an authority is primary – so much so that the justification for the existence of authority is not that it works perfectly or that it never makes mistakes, but simply the rule “no authority, no society.”

Catholics believe not only that a supreme authority is necessary in a human society, but that the supreme authority of the Church resides in the particular form of the Pope. We believe that the office of the papacy was established by Christ himself with the intent that it should continue to the end of the world. We believe that there is a direct succession between the first pope – St. Peter himself – and all subsequent popes. Such beliefs hinge on several different things and are defended in a variety of ways.

First, our interpretation of scripture sees Peter as the first pope as defined by several different statements of Christ, and supported in the Old Testament. This is continued in scriptural descriptions that portray Peter as a leader of the early Church.

Following the scriptural description of the papacy will be a look at the linguistic evidence. This evidence will show that Peter was appointed by Christ, and served as the first head of Christ’s Church on earth.

Next, there are historical records that indicate the papacy was founded by Peter, and accepted as such very early in the history of the Church. This acceptance was from the very beginning of recorded Church history, and spans a vast geographical area.

There is also archaeological evidence that supports the idea that Peter's first Church was founded in the same site as the modern day Vatican.

There are, in short, Scriptural, linguistic, historical and archaeological arguments in favor of the papacy.

Against these arguments, Protestants have a battery of counter-arguments. A taste of these arguments comes from Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating:

Like other Protestants, fundamentalists say Peter was never appointed by Christ as the earthly head of the Church for the simple reason that the Church has no earthly head and was never meant to have one. Christ is the Church’s only foundation, in every sense of the term.

The papacy, they say, is an institution that arose out of third century politics, both secular and ecclesiastical; it has no connection, other than mythological, with the New Testament. It was not established by Christ, even though supposed “successors” to Peter and their apologists claim that it was. At best the papacy is a ruse; at worst, a work of the devil. In any case, it is an institution designed to give the Catholic Church an authority it simply does not have.

Besides, the argument continues, Peter was never in Rome and so could not have been the first Pope, and that puts the lie to talk about his “successors”; the unbroken chain is broken in its first link. How can Catholics talk about the divine origin of the papacy when their claim about Peter’s whereabouts is wrong?

It should be noted that the case for the papacy is not quite airtight. I don’t mean that literally, of course, but let’s face facts – if someone wants to disbelieve that Peter was the first pope, placed in office by Christ himself, and that his successors serve by divine intent, then they will find a means to sustain that disbelief even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary. I’ve had many a Protestant apologist look me square in the eye and say that they didn’t believe the linguistic evidence, no matter how convincing it might be, and in spite of the fact that they couldn’t come up with any evidence to the contrary. When the archeological evidence was first presented, it was met with howls of disbelief. I doubt we’ll ever find absolute proof, but then why would God need to supply us with such absolutes? Faith does not require a smoking gun.

For some people, acceptance of the papacy is a purely intellectual thing; all they have to do is be convinced with the evidence at hand. For others, it’s a matter entirely of the heart; they have to be made to feel that it’s right. In reality, as with most matters of conversion, this is really a matter for both the head and heart. My goal with these posts is to try to open the door and show the truth as we Catholics understand it. I can’t shove you through that door (nor would I even if I could). I think I can convince anyone that approaches this subject with BOTH an open mind AND an open heart. I’ve failed, in the past, to convince people where one or the other is closed. It doesn’t often work to convince the mind, only to have a hardened heart say, “I cannot accept.” Equally, it does no good if the longings of the heart are silenced by a hardened head.

On a technical note – unless otherwise noted in the text, all biblical citations will use the Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition. Normally, for small quotes, I use the Douay-Reims version – I prefer the more poetic language. However, the Douay isn’t the best version for serious Bible study. The Douay is a translation from the Latin Vulgate Bible. Most modern versions of the Bible come from either the Greek or Hebrew originals, rather than the Latin. As a result of these different sources, the Douay has some minor variations in the versification numbers used for references within the Bible itself. Under most circumstances, such differences aren’t noticeable. In this series of posts, especially the citations in Acts, these differences may cause a problem if you try to look them up in a different version at home. Using the RSV-CE should solve that.

I’d also like to post a brief bibliography now, rather than post one with each entry. I don’t want to clutter things up with a huge number of end notes, so I’ll put the books in general here and refer to them in the text when absolutely necessary. In addition to these, there are a couple of websites I’m using for the linguistics. These I will not add just now as there is a fair danger of misunderstanding what’s presented in them (and I want to examine their orthodoxy before promoting them in any way).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ARMSTRONG, Dave. The Catholic Verses Sophia, 2004

DE LUBAC, Henri. Catholicism Ignatius, 1988

JOHNSON, Paul. A History of Christianity Touchstone, 1995

JURGENS, William A. The Faith of the Early Fathers; Volumes 1, 2 & 3 The Liturgical Press, 1979

KEATING, Karl. Catholicism and Fundamentalism Ignatius, 1988

OTT, Dr. Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma TAN, 1974

SHEED, Frank. Theology and Sanity Ignatius, 1993

SHEED, Frank & WARD, Maisie. Catholic Evidence Training Outlines Thomas N. O’Brien, 1992

SHEEN, Fulton J. Life of Christ Doubleday Image Books, 1990

STRONG, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance Hendrickson, 2005

WALSH, John Evangelist. The Bones of St. Peter Doubleday, 1982

Bibles Used:
Revised Standard Version – Catholic Edition
Catholic Study Bible – New American Version
Douay- Rheims Version
King James Version