By Leonard Jayawardena –

Recently, Jerome Fernando, leader of Prophet Jerome Fernando Ministries, who not so long ago landed in hot water because of his controversial remarks about religions, was again in the news. This time over his ordination as a bishop in his church.

This had apparently caused confusion among Roman Catholic Church members, for a statement issued by the Catholic Bishops Conference in Sri Lanka dated 9 December has clarified that Jerome Fernando is not a Bishop of the Catholic Church, and therefore their members should not be “deceived.”

The statement says;

Catholic Bishop is a continuation of the successors of the apostles of Jesus. Every Catholic Bishop is one of the direct successors of the eleven apostles, except for the Apostle Peter who is the head of the apostles. The direct successor of St. Peter is His Holiness Pope. [sic]

Mr Jerome Fernando…has no official apostolic succession in the Catholic Church….

For those not biblically literate, the term “apostles” in the above statement refers to a group of twelve disciples of Jesus whom he appointed to lead the church that he promised to build and preach the Christian gospel. Apostolic succession, which is not a biblical term, refers to a doctrine taught by some Christian denominations that bishops—a bishop is a high-ranking clergyman in charge of an ecclesiastical district called a diocese—represent a direct, uninterrupted line of continuity from the first apostles of Jesus Christ. In addition to the Roman Catholic Church, certain other denominations, including the Eastern Orthodox Church, subscribe to this doctrine.

For valid ordination the bishops (including, in the Catholic Church, the Pope, the bishop of Rome) should be able to trace their succession back to the apostles in an unbroken line. Jerome not being ordained a bishop in the Catholic Church, he lacks that succession in the view of that church and hence is not recognized as one of their bishops.

Based primarily on the following New Testament passage;

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. 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” (Matthew 16:18-19) the Roman Catholic Church makes certain significant claims—reflected in part in the Catholic Bishops’ statement cited above—especially that Peter, as the rock of the church and the bearer of the keys of the kingdom, was granted by Jesus a position of pre-eminence over the other apostles and a primacy of jurisdiction over the whole church for all time as the Vicar of Christ, which is inherited by each of his successors. Thus Peter is understood to have been the first pope and, as Catholic tradition has it that Peter held a bishopric in the church of Rome until his death in AD 67, succession to Peter is limited to the bishops of Rome.

This New Testament passage is also the main text used by the Roman Church in support of her doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope, which holds that when the Pope speaks ex cathedra, that is, out of Peter’s chair, on matters of faith and morals, he is preserved from error.

A correct understanding of the above Matthean passage is not just a matter of mere theological or academic interest for the reason that, relying on the interpretation of the Roman Church of this passage, countless millions of her adherents over the centuries have trusted the authority of the Pope because they have believed that he has divinely-granted power to teach without error and to guide that church rightly as the Vicar of Christ on earth. Nations have even gone to war in the past at the behest of the Pope.

In what follows, a concise exegesis of this Matthean passage is given followed by comments on the Catholic Church’s claims as related to the papacy, so that the reader will be able to judge how biblically-based the latter are.

1. You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church. The New Testament was originally written in Greek, in which language the words for “Peter” and “rock” are petros and petra respectively (all non-English words are written in transliteration). petra was the usual word for a rock in the Koine (common) Greek of the first century, in which these two words could be used synonymously to mean “stone” or “rock.” Peter’s original name was Simon and Jesus renamed him kēphā (“rock”) in Aramaic, the mother tongue of Jews in Jesus’ day. Peter is the anglicised form of the Greek petros, which represents the Aramaic kēphā, the new name of Simon.

In the original Greek there is a word play between petros and petra not observable in English translation. Actually, what Jesus said to Peter originally was, “You are kēphā, and on this kēphā I will build my church,” where the word play is even clearer. kēphā is feminine in gender in Aramaic but as male names are masculine in gender in Greek the masculine noun petros is used instead of the feminine petra to represent the first kēphā in the original Aramaic underlying the Greek of Mattthew 16:18.

Jesus renamed Simon as Peter (“rock”) because the latter was to be the foundation on which he (Jesus) would build his church. That the role Jesus envisaged for Peter when he renamed him so is foundational in nature is supported by the occurrence of the same Greek word petra in his parable of the two foundations in Matthew 7:24: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock [Gr. petra].”

Simon’s new name Peter conveys the idea that as the foundation of the infant Church he will provide rock-like stability and strength to it. Indeed the history of the early New Testament Church as recorded in the book of Acts confirms that Jesus’ confidence in Peter was not misplaced.

Others besides Peter are also said to be the foundation of Christ’s Church. For example, the apostles and the prophets are said to be the foundation of God’s house with Christ as the cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20). 1 Corinthians 3:11 Paul says, “For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.”

Interpreted in isolation, these verses contradict one another, but interpreting them with regard to their original intent and historical context removes these apparent contradictions while revealing the true sense in which Peter was the rock of the Church. By his life, ministry and death, Jesus laid a unique and incomparable foundation. True to his name, Peter was the rock of stability and a sure foundation on which the Church was built when it was still in its infancy and formative stage. Then the other apostles, too, contributed to the foundation, among whom was the apostle Paul, who was called to the ministry at a later stage of the church.

2. The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it (the Church). According to Greek mythology, the god Hades presided over the underworld, after whom the underworld itself was named. Without subscribing to the mythology associated with this word (its Hebrew Old Testament equivalent is sheol), the Bible writers referred to it as the place where the dead, both righteous and unrighteous, go when they die.

Classical Greek literature describes the underworld as having gates, which were kept closed by the god Hades, so that no one might escape from it, for which reason one of the god’s names was “gate-keeper.” Through his resurrection Jesus escaped from Hades (Revelation 1:18) and so it did not prevail against him to shut him in forever, and he promises the same for his Church.

3. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The word “kingdom” here refers to the kingdom of God (= the New Testament Church), and bears the concrete sense of “the community of believers,” that is, the New Testament church members as the subjects of that (spiritual) kingdom.

Keys lock or unlock doors. The doors to which Peter was given keys are those that open to the Church, which is pictured in Matthew 16:18 as a building built on the foundation of Peter. The giving of the keys to Peter symbolizes the authority given to him to open the doors of God’s house, that is his Church, through the preaching of the Gospel and invite the world to enter it and also exclude those unfit to enter.

The early history of the New Testament Church as reported in the book of Acts shows this authority in action. For example, in Acts 2, it is Peter who preaches in Jerusalem on the Day of Pentecost resulting in the salvation and entrance into the kingdom of about three thousand Jews and Jewish proselytes. In Peter’s rebuke to Simon Magus in Acts 8:21 we have an instance of him shutting the door of the kingdom in the face of an impious intruder.

4. Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. These words of Jesus are repeated in Matthew 18:18, where they are addressed to all the disciples. The words’ context there shows that the words “bind” and “loose” refer to retaining and forgiving sins. This interpretation is supported by John 20:23, whose clauses are structured similarly to the “bind” and “loose” clauses in Matthew 16:19 and 18:18: “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained,” where “forgive” and “retain” represent “loose” and “bind” respectively in the Matthean passages. The decisions of the Church with regard to forgiving and retaining sins are declared to be honoured and confirmed in heaven.

The context of “bind” and “loose” in Matthew 18:18 is Jesus’ instructions to his disciples on how to deal with an errant member of the church, that is church discipline, an application of which is found 1 Corinthians 5 (cf. 2 Corinthians 2:5ff).

But the context of Matthew 18:19 is Jesus giving the keys of the kingdom to Peter, which indicates that binding and loosing in the latter verse relate to authority given to Peter to judge and declare on the spiritual status of an aspiring member of the Church. For repentance from sins is the first and principal prerequisite for entrance to the kingdom of God and Jesus’ declaration of Peter’s authority to bind and loose in association with the keys of the kingdom in Matthew 16:19, which signifies the authority given him to admit or exclude from that kingdom, naturally supports the idea that binding and loosing mean retaining and forgiving sins.

An illustration of Matthew 16:19 is found in the Book of Acts in Peter refusing Simon the Sorcerer’s request to buy the power of the holy spirit and declaring him “in the chains of wickedness” (Acts 8:20-23). The Greek for “chains of wickedness” is sundesmon adikias. The Greek noun sundesmon is cognate with the Greek verb for “bind” in Matthew 16:19 and 18:16, which is deō. In saying that Simon was “in chains of wickedness” or “bond of unrighteousness,” Peter declared him to be bound as by a chain to sin and so bound his sin.

The authority that Jesus gave his disciples to remit and retain sins is the same authority he exercised during his own ministry as exemplified in his words to the paralytic who was lowered through the roof of a house: “Son, your sins are forgiven” (Mark 2:5). Both in Jesus’ and his disciples’ case, this authority was only declarative, not collative. Forgiveness is only declared on condition of true repentance, faith and holiness, not conferred. Only God can actually forgive sins.

Now to comment on the Catholic Church’s claims based on this passage. The church teaches that Jesus conferred on Peter the primacy of jurisdiction over the entire church by virtue of making him alone the rock of the church and giving him alone the keys of the kingdom, and that this primacy is inherited by his supposed successors, the bishops of Rome, who, too, are the rock of the church. In answer

1. According to the evidence of the Gospels, Peter was undeniably the leader of the apostles during Jesus’ ministry. For example, his name always heads the lists of the apostles and his name is mentioned far more times in the Gospels than the names of all the other apostles put together. Thereafter Peter dominated the Christian community for about 15 years as evidenced in the book of Acts.

However, the history of the NT Church as narrated in the book of Acts after chapter 12 suggests that the mantle of leadership of the Jerusalem church passed to James the apostle, who presided over the Council of Jerusalem described in Acts 15, at which Peter, too, was present and spoke. From this point onwards Peter disappears from the book’s history and it is the apostle Paul and his work that become the focus of the book.

In his letter to the Galatians, Paul reports an incident in which he publicly rebuked Peter for acting in a manner inconsistent with the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). His writings contain many passages of doctrinal teaching and correction but never once does he refer to any supreme authority of Peter as a final court of appeal. In Galatians 2:9 Paul lists the three church “pillars” he conferred with on a visit to Jerusalem in the following order: “James, Cephas [=Peter] and John.” Peter himself is unaware of any primacy he had over the rest, for he in his first epistle calls himself a “fellow elder” and says such are not to lord over the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3). There is absolutely no hint of an assumption of primacy over the other elders whom he addesses in the epistle.

2. As explained earlier, the metaphor “rock” in Matthew 16:18 refers to a foundation as in Matthew 7:24. Therefore to say that Jesus made Peter alone the rock of his Church is equivalent to saying that he made Peter alone the foundation of his church, which is manifestly wrong as others, too, formed part of her foundation.

3. Jesus commissioned all the apostles to preach the Gospel to all nations and make converts (Matthew 28:16ff), which implies that the keys of the kingdom were wielded not just by Peter (vide the symbolism of the keys explained above).

4. Contrary to Catholic teaching, there is absolutely no support for the notion of a successor to Peter in this passage or anywhere else in the NT. Though the NT record is silent on Peter appointing a successor to him, Catholic tradition claims to trace a line of Roman bishops succeeding to Peter from one Linus (first century) to Pope Francis. In Catholic teaching every pope is a direct successor of Peter, not his predecessor. Hence the statement in the Catholic Bishops’ statement cited above: “The direct successor of St. Peter is His Holiness Pope” (sic).

The reason for Peter’s supposed successors all being from the city of Rome is the Catholic tradition that Peter founded the church of Rome and held a bishopric in that city until his martyrdom in AD 67 under the Roman emperor Nero. The claim that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop is controversial and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.

There is a belief in Catholic circles that Peter was the bishop of Rome for the last twenty-five years of his life from AD 42 to 67. This belief is reflected in Eusebius of Caesarea’s “The Chronicle,” dated to AD 303, and Jerome’s work “On Illustrious Men,” dated to the late fourth century AD. However, New Testament accounts of the activity of Peter clearly exclude the possibility of him holding a bishopric in Rome as early as AD 42.

Paul, in his letter to the Romans, which was written between AD 55-57 according to scholarly consensus, did not address the letter to Peter or refer to him as its pastor. And in chapter 16 of the letter he extended greetings to twenty-eight friends in Rome but makes no mention of Peter, which would have been a major oversight, indeed an afront, if in fact Peter was governing the Roman church at that time.

It is generally accepted that Paul wrote his epistles to the Ephesians, the Philippians, the Colossians and Philemon while he was under house arrest in Rome during AD 60-62 as described in Acts 28. He wrote his second letter to Timothy during another imprisonment around A.D. 64, though some place it as late as AD 67. In these letters he extended greetings to his letters’ recipients from ten specific people in Rome, but, again, made no mention of Peter being there.

While there is New Testament evidence for Peter visiting Rome (cf. 1 Peter 5:13, where “Babylon” is a cryptic name for Rome), the Roman Catholic belief that Peter was the first bishop of Rome or that he even founded the Roman church is based purely on Catholic traditions and not the Bible, and, as can be demonstrated, these traditions are at variance with the data of the NT.

5. The Catholic Church’s teaching that the Pope as the successor of Peter is also the rock on which the spiritual edifice of the ecclesiastical communion is founded reveals a fundamental misapprehension of the metaphor of a rock used by Jesus. As the rock of the incipient Church, the role that Jesus envisaged for Peter is foundational in nature, and, in the very nature of the case, a foundation cannot be laid perpetually, nor can a founder have a successor. Once a foundation is laid, others take over and build on it and it was so with the New Testament Church. Compare with 1 Corinthians 3:10, where Paul says, “By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert builder, and someone else is building on it.” The work of foundation does not continue forever. Is the Pope still laying a foundation after so many centuries?

The Catholic Church further teaches that the Pope’s power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:19) includes the authority to pronounce doctrinal judgements. The church has abused this misinterpretation to bind her members’ conscience to such demonstrably unbiblical doctrines as the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, her Immaculate Conception, her bodily Assumption, transubtantiation and purgatory.

The authority that the Catholic Church claims based on this Matthean passage in particular is vitiated by the fact that even teachings promulgated by the Catholic Church historically with the highest level of authority have since been altered. Perhaps the best example for this is the Church’s historical teaching that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation. In Latin it is famously expressed as extra ecclesia nulla salus and is the subject of numerous ex-cathedra papal pronouncements.

The modern Catholic Church has done a volte face on this and now teaches that even non-Christians can receive eternal life provided they live according to the light they have. Conversion to Christianity, let alone the Catholic Church, is no longer necessary for salvation.

This position of the modern Catholic Church completely contradicts not only her historical teaching on this subject but also the Bible, which is exclusivist. In his defense before the Jewish leadership as recorded in Acts 4, the apostle Peter declared that salvation is available only in the name of Jesus. The whole rationale for Jesus preaching the Gospel, commissioning his disciples to do the same throughout the world and their carrying out that commission in obedience to their master’s command sometimes even at the cost of their lives is that salvation is not possible without a knowledge of and obedience to the Christian Gospel. The Catholic Church’s present position makes nonsense of all that.

Finally, the Catholic Church’s past record of the most unChristlike treatment of those whom she considered heretics from the Catholic faith raises the question of whether the church’s decisions in this regard could have received the heavenly seal of approval.

After Catholicism received state patronage during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine and then became of the official religion of the Roman empire in AD 380 under Theodosius the Great, various penal laws were enacted against heretics as being guilty of crimes against the State. These included physical punishment, confiscation of property, imprisonment, banishment and even, in some cases, capital punishment. The burning of heretics was first decreed in the eleventh century. At the Synod of Verona held in AD 1184, Pope Lucius III, with the concurrence of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick the first, issued a bull which condemned and excommunicated various types of heretics, and imposed on bishops the duty to search out the heretics in their dioceses and to turn the unrepentant over to the secular power for punishment, which included death.

The foregoing is only a brief description of the Catholic Church’s past treatment of heretics but suffices to establish the point that such egregiously unChristlike and monstrous conduct most assuredly could not have met with heavenly approbation, which vitiates the Catholic Church’s view that the words “whatever you bind on earth, will be bound in heaven,” etc. extend to doctrinal judgements pronounced by the Pope.