Questions and Answers Series

No. 3
0

Examination of Text Which Continues to Divide Christendom

Was Peter the Rock

Upon Which Christ

Built His Church?

By Harold P. Morgan, Ph.D.

Editor of Questions and Answers

Author of Was Peter Ever in Rome?

QUESTIONS THIS PAMPHLET ANSWERS:

1 . Do the Holy Scriptures assign to Peter the office of

supreme head and ruler of the Church?

2. Did Christ commit to Peter universal spiritual jurisdiction

and absolute power over mankind?

3. Have the long line of successors in the popedom inherited

the plentitude of power and authority which is claimed

for Peter?

4. Are the popes today precisely what Peter is said to have

been officially when he ruled the church from Rome?

5. What is the Pope^s present program?

BIBLICAL INFORMATION BUREAU

P. O. Box 185

Bloomington, Illinois, U.S.A.



Copyright, 1944, The Biblical Information Bureau. All rights

reserved, no part of this article may be reproduced in any
form without permission from the publishers.

Printed in the United States of America

OeadtfiPted



Was Peter the Rock?

T
he LATIN inscription in large letters of gold, which
encircles the base of Michael Angelo’s dome in the

great basilica of St. Peter’s Rome,^^^ proclaims to all

Christendom the Magna Charta of the Papacy:

Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo ec-

clesiam Meam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum.^2)

Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my

Church and I will give unto thee the keys of the King-

dom of Heaven,

The traveller standing beneath this mighty dome, tower-

ing into midair some four hundred feet from the marble

floor, might well exclaim, “Here is the most gorgeous

structure that has been built since the time of Solom.on.”

Its arched roof, from end to end one sweep of carving and

gold; its huge twisted columns of Corinthian bronze; blocks

of the richest marble and translucent alabaster; abounding

wealth of statuary chiseled by the greatest masters
;
chapels

resplendent with mosaics depicting the glory of the Papacy’s

long, eventful history, — all this marvelous beauty combine
to make St. Peter’s the transcendent triumph of archi-

tectural skill it was designed to be. The visitor, listening to

the solemn organ music rolling out on the incense-laden air

and reverberating through the shadowy aisles and transepts

up to the immensity of the blending dome, cannot but be

caught by the liturgical spell of the Gregorian chant.

(1) In order to raise funds for the rebuilding- of St. Peter's

Church, Rome, according to the plans of Michael Angelo,
Pope Leo X, following the example of his predecessor,
Julius II, proclaimed a so-called “Plenary Indulgence,”

phrased in very sweeping terms and offering to believing
purchasers all sorts of benefits, including remission of sins,

freedom from the necessity Of penance, and the release of
their deceased friends from purgatory, — the sale of these
indulgences was the immediate cause of the Lutheran revolt.

(2) Bihlia Sacra VulgataCt MattJiaeum, XVI :18, 19.



4 Was Peter the Rock?

Peter’s Statue

Near the High Altar, by one of the four massive pillars

supporting the dome, is a point of interest. On a pedestal

about four feet high, is a bronze statue of Peter, — a rudely
executed work which some eminent archaeologists main-

tain was originally the statue of Jupiter Capitolinus. Pope

Leo the Great is credited with appropriating and baptizing

the ancient bronze, transforming it into the traditional like-

ness of Peter in commemoration of the deliverance of

Rome from the invasion of Attila. However that may be,

there it is, seated in a marble chair, the left hand holding

the keys, the insignia of the office of gatekeeper of heaven

and hell, while the right hand, the two fingers of which are

extended, is depicted in the act of bestowing the “apostolic

blessing.'’ The right foot of the statue projects a little from

the vestment, which in fast wearing away is assuming the

appearance of a Chinese lady’s lily 'foot. The faithful offer

humble homage to the statue. Here a constant procession

of devotees may be seen every day. The extended foot is

reverently kissed, then wiped with a more or less clean

handkerchief, or oftener with the coat sleeve or wrist-band.

The performance recalls to mind the Mussulman on a pil-

grimage to Mecca kissing the black stone of the Caaba.

Peter’s Chair

Another point of interest is Peter’s Chair, mounted on

a magnificent throne of bronze and gilt, surmounted by a

canop3% and supported by four colossal figures, Augustine,

Ambrose, Chrysostom and Athanasius,— strange to relate
not one of these Church Fathers ever advocated the su-

premacy and jurisdiction of the occupant of the Roman

See. The relic stands at the extreme end of the basilica,

facing the main entrance, and thus dominates the whole

building. Its design includes angels floating over the chair;

above the angels is the emblem of God the Spirit in the

form of a dove, from which rays of divine light pour down

upon this seat of ecclesiastical authority. Thus God Him-



Was Peter the Rock? 5

self is represented as honoring the chair, notwithstanding

that its voice is frequently in direct opposition to the voice

of God’s Word. It is interesting to note that this sculptured

symbolism dates from the year 1659— the Papacy’s answer
to the Protestant Reformation.

Tradition asserts that this chair is the very one upon

which Peter sat when he officiated as bishop of Rome, and

from whence his utterances issued. Lady Morgan,^^^ a

much travelled and prolific writer, tells quite another story.

She states that when the French took possession of Rome

at the time of the French Revolution, sacrilegious curiosity

induced the soldiery to break through the reliquary. Upon

examination the old wooden chair was seen to be of fifth

century design, and altogether dissimilar in design and

structure from the chairs pictured in the Catacombs. Be-

neath the dust and cobwebs, so the story runs, was found

an inscription in Arabic characters,— the well-known con-
fession of Mohammedan faith. “There is but one God, and

Mohammed is his prophet.” Lady Morgan suggests that the

chair was brought from the East among the spoils of the

Crusaders and presented to St. Peter’s at a time when anti-

quarian research was not much in fashion.

(3) The Critical Dictionary of English Literature devotes three
columns to Lady Morgan’s literary activities. (Philadel-
phia, 1870) pp. 1366-1367.

(4) Morgan, Lady Sydney Owenson, Italy, (London, 1821) Vol.
II, p. 227. Extended controversy resulted from this ex-
posure. Nicholas, Cardinal Wiseman, Archbishop of West-
minster, took a hand at settling the dispute. He wrote very
learnedly about the Cathedra Petri, declaring that its
original owner was a converted Roman Senator, Pudens
by name, friend and host to Peter. In 1851, Lady Morgan
addressed a clever rejoinder to Wiseman’s criticisms, in
which she suggested a way of settling the dispute : let
the chair be examined by a group of experts, chosen from
Catholic and Protestant scholars. Apparently that ended
the rather labored controversy. A solemn festival in honor
of “Peter’s Chair’’ is held each year on January 19th, when
it is publicly displayed, but out of reach of curious,
impious hands.

Professor H. Forbes Witherly, who seems to have en-
joyed better opportunity for investigation than Lady Mor-
gan, goes into details regarding the structure and com-
position of the chair. He says in a valuable monograph on
the subject ; “The ornaments of the chair generally tell
their own tale. They are designs on ivory, three rows of



6 Was thk Rock?

Peter’s Tomb

The chief attraction of St. Peter’s, however, is the tomb

of the apostle, known as “The Great Confession.” Under-
neath the dome and beneath the marble floor lies the reputed

remains of the poor, simple, barefooted fisherman of Gali-

lee. Before the chamber upon which a succession of Popes

have lavished great stores of w^ealth, one hundred odd gold

and silver lamps burn perpetually. The chamber is entered

only by the Pope, and these visits are limited to rare occa-

sions. At such times, “Christ’s Vicar” enters on his knees,

pausing at different stages, and finally prostrating himself

to kiss the revered spot,— the site where, according to
tradition, Peter was buried after having been crucified head

downwards in the Circus of Nero.

The Text Which for Centuries

Has Divided Christendom

Reverting to the Latin inscription on the frieze of St.

Peter’s dome, the first to apply the text to Peter and his

successors was Pope Leo I, bishop of Rome, (440-461). The

councils of Ephesus, (431), and Chalcedon, (451), rejected

his contention; nevertheless, it had its influence. What may

be called the first determined effort to employ the text as

warrant for the episcopal supremacy of Rome was made

by Pope Gregory I, who, it is generally conceded, laid the

cornerstone of what later was to become the gigantic fabric

of the Papacy.

six each, the two upper rows are mainly representations
of the labors of Hercules. The chair, therefore, in its dec-
orations, is in honor of the pagan hero, the man-god of
Roman mythology—the man the pagan Roman loved, the
most powerful of men, and the man of the most atrocious
morals.” Dr. Witherly adds: “Imagine that strong-minded,
paganism-hating Jew, seated in honor and honored in the
midst of these pagan abominations ! No one having read
Peter’s Epistles and the account of his character and activ-
ities in the Acts can tolerate such disreputable slander

again him.’* The Chair of St. Peter in the Church of St.
Peter, (London. 1905) pp. 83, 84.



Was Pi:tkr the Rock? 7

The age-old interpretation given to this text in the

gospel of Matthew is as follows

:

To Peter, the first bishop of Rome,<^^ the office of

supreme head and ruler of the Church was com-

mitted by Christ; that upon him also was bestowed

universal jurisdiction and absolute power over all

mankind, and that the long line of successors in the

Papal chair inherit the plentitude of power and author-

ity that was his, so that they are today precisely what

he was officially when he ruled the Church from

Rome.

Colossal Assumptions

The Church of Rome contends for and undertakes to

prove

:

First, that in the course of His earthly ministry, the

Lord Jesus Christ conferred on Simon Peter a primacy of

jurisdiction and authority over the rest of the Twelve as

well as over the whole Church so that he was entitled to

their obedience and submission.

Second, that this primacy was not to be confined to

Peter, but was to be transmitted through him to an un-

interrupted line of successors for all the later history of

the Church.

Third, that by the Lord’s special guidance and under

His divine sanction, the apostle Peter became bishop at

Rome and died in the occupancy of that See.

Fourth, that by the authority of the Lord, Peter did

actually entrust to all the future occupants of that bishopric

the same jurisdiction over the whole Church that had been

committed to him and that he himself had wielded.

The whole contention then turns upon the fundamental

issue, namely, that of the rightness of the Papal supremacy.

(5) “Was Peter Ever in Rome?” QUESTIONS AND AN-
SWERS^ February, 1943.



8 Was Pkter thi: Rock?

If this claim could be substantiated, it would be superfluous,

if not presumptuous, to raise any further questions. If the

Pope is indeed by divine ordinance' the sole, supreme ruler

of the whole Church, the “Vicar of Christ on earth,” who,

when He speaks officially on “faith and morals,” is infallible,

then he cannot be questioned, whatever he may do. If, in-

deed, he is so endowed with divine wisdom and knowledge

then all his utterances must be wholly accepted. On the

other hand, if no divine warrant can be found for these

momentous claims, then we must conclude that they are

mere assumptions. If the claim to be God’s vicegerent is

settled, all the rest follows — it is perforce the end of all
controversy.

The Vatican Council and the Scriptures

The universal supremacy and jurisdiction claimed by

the Popes as the successors of Peter — if it exists at all —
must have been asserted from the time of Peter to the

present day. It could not be a gradual development, or

an invention of later years. For if so, it would not be a

heritage handed down from the Apostle. Accordingly,

Roman Catholic authorities uniformly maintain that the

historic claim made on behalf of the Popes has always been

allowed and believed by the whole Church.

Fortunately, the right and proper method of approach

to an analysis and evaluation of these claims is pointed out

by the very form in which they are made by the last

General Council, over which Pope Piux IX himself pre-

sided. The Council affirmed that these claims are made on

the grounds that they have the express authority of Holy

Scriptures. It stated:

We, therefore, teach and declare,' according to the

(6) Gone. THd. Constitutio dogmatica prima de Ecclesia
Ghristi. Sess. I. III. The Council of Trent also decreed:
“That the gospel which our Lord Jesus Christ first preached
with his own mouth, and afterward commanded to be
preached by His apostles to every creature, is the fountain
of all saving grace and good morals.” Sess. IT.



Was Pktkr the Rock? 9

testimony of the Gospel, that the primacy of juris-

diction over the whole Church of God, immediate and

direct, was promised and given to the blessed Apostle

Peter by Christ the Lord.”^^^

Gladly we avail ourselves of the invitation, and are will-

ing to join in this appeal, and are prepared to abide by

the issue. We heartily accept the challenge to bring our

plea before the Final Court of Appeal, for no further ap-

peal is open to us other than the court of the Holy

Scriptures.

The point at issue is now clearly before us. We hold

that Holy Scripture is the Word of God, and is the revela-

tion in human language to which we must go for doctrines

which are the bases of all Christian activity ; and that by its

records of historical events we are to test all our theories

and hold in check all our speculations.

The Final Court of Appeal
'

As our memory scans the past, we recall a lecture de-

livered by the eminent Jesuit theologian, Father Joseph

Rickaby. In a retreat for the Catholic clergy of the North-

ern diocese in England, he not only assumed, but plainly

declared that anyone who thinks, or professes to think,

that the words “upon this rock” can mean anything but

(7) Documenta Concilium Yaticanum, Pars ii. The Vatican
Council met in Rome in 1870. After considerable debate
the theory of Papal Infallibility was adopted. The Coun-
cil decreed that the Pope himself, when speaking ex ca-
thedra, i.e., as the occupant of the chair of Peter, is in-
fallible. It further decreed that : “If any one, therefore,
shall say that blessed Peter, the Apostle, was not ap-
pointed the Prince of all the Apostles, and the Visible
Head of the whole Church militant, or that the same di-
rectly and immediately received from the same our Lord
Jesus Christ a primacy of honor only, and not of true and
proper jurisdiction, let him te accursed.

If, then, any should deny that it is by the institution
of Christ, the Lord, or by divine right, that blessed Peter
should have a perpetual line of successors in the primacy
of blessed Peter in this primacy: Let him he accursedJ‘
Doc. Con. Yat. Pars ii



10 Was Peter the Rock?

Peter, must either be wilfully blind, or else so prejudiced

by an unfortunate ecclesiastical position or worldly inter-

ests and motives, that he is incapable of seeing the plain

Scripture meaning of the text, which he affirmed could not

be otherwise understood unless there was some intellectual

prejudice or moral obstruction in the way. Let us, therefore,

turn to the Scriptures.

The earthly ministry of Jesus was approaching its close.

Everyone had discussed Him. To what purpose had He

come? What was the popular feeling? Christ approached

His disciples with the question, “Whom do men say that I

the Son of Man am?” Matthew 16:13. What views do they

hold? From His followers came the answers, “Som-e say that

thou art John the' Baptist
;
some, Elias; and others Jeremias,

or one of the prophets.” Matthew 16:14. Christ now appealed

from the opinions of the nation to that of the disciples them-

selves : “But whom say ye that I am?” Matthew 16:15, Peter,

repeating what he and all the disciples had, avowed a few days

before in the ship, Matthew 14:33, said: “Thou art the Christ,

the Son of the living God,” Matthew 16:16. And as if to

prevent Peter from becoming puffed up with pride, Christ

answered, “Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee.”

Matthew 16:17. Peter had not formed this in his own mind,

God the Father had revealed it unto him. Then followed a

further revelation which the Lord Himself gave.

The whole passage is really a simple one. The crux of

the text is the figurative word “rock.” The Roman Church

maintains that the word “rock” refers to Peter, upon whom

Christ built His Church, and bases her interpretation on

a play on words. The word “Peter” and the word “rock”

closely resemble each other in the original, of which sim-

ilarity of sound the Church of Rome has taken full ad-

vantage to the confusion of sense, substituting the one for

the other. In a footnote to the Douay version of the Holy

Scriptures, Roman Catholic authorities added the following

paragraph

:

The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar



Was Pe:ter the Rock? 11

language of the Jews, which our Lord made use of,

were the same as if he had said in English, 'Thou

art a rock, and upon this rock 1 will build my

church.’ So that by the plain course of the words,

Peter is here declared to he the rock upon which the

Church was to be built.

This comment is at direct variance with the original.

These two words, which have a similar sound, are different

in meaning, of different genders and the accidents opposite

— mobility opposed to immobility. So, too, the words '‘thou”
and “this,’" differ in person and case. “Thou” is in the

second person, and “this” is in the third. The word “this,”

therefore, must refer to something antecedent, different

from “thou.” If the original Greek had been, ''Bpi touto to

Petro” — upon this Peter, the Church of Rome might have
some plea for her contention. But the words of Christ are,

ei Petros, kai epi taute te Petra” — thou are Peter, and
upon this rock. The Latin Vulgate, declared by the Council of

Trent to be authentic, so that “no one may dare or presume

to reject it,” makes the same distinction as does the Greek —
“Tw es Petrus et super hanc Petram” '‘Petrus” is in the

masculine gender, and "Petram” is in the feminine. The phi-

lology of a word or two can profoundly change the meaning.

(8) The Douay Version of the Scriptures was translated not
from the original Hebrew and Greek, but from the Latin
Vulgate of Jerome. The version was published in Douay
in 1609, with Annotations.

(9) The Canon of the Council of Trent, De Cononis Scripturis,
Sess. IV, decreed that : “no one shall presume to interpret
the Scriptures contrary to the unanimous consent of the
Fathers.” It is doubtful whether any instance of that unani-
mous consent is to be found. But should we accept this rule
we would be forced to abandon Rome’s exposition of the
words, “Upon this rock I will build my church.” There are
five different interpretations of the word rock by the Church
Fathers. First, that the rock was built on Peter. This in-
terpretation is followed by seventeen Fathers. Second, that
the Church was built on all the apostles. This opinion is
followed by eight Fathers. Third, that the faith which
Peter professed is the immovable foundation of the Church.
This interpretation is followed bv forty-four Fathers and
Doctors. Fourth, that the Church was built on Christ. This
interpretation is followed by sixteen Fathers and Doctors.
Fifth, that the name of rock is the whole body of the
faithful, five Fathers hold.



12 Was Peter the Rock?

Important law cases have often hinged upon a comma more

or less.

How the Passage Is Rendered

In Other Versions

We have before us as we write several versions of this
passage, which it is proper here to point out to the Bible

student. Thus in the German version of the passage we

read: ‘'Du hist Petrus, und auf diesen Felsen will ich bauen

meine GemeineF Here, as in the English, the thought of the

original is almost lost, for the structure of the German did

not allow of its being translated. The Spanish version is more

exact, it reads, “Tu eres Pedro, y sobre esta piedra edificare

mi IglesiaP The' same may be said of the Italian, which ren-

ders the passage, “Tu sei Pietro, e sopra questa io edifichero la

mia chiesaF Of all the versions we have consulted, one only,

the French, makes the resemblance between the two terms,

“Peter’’ and “rock.” We read in this version, “Tu es Pierre,
et sur cette pierre je batirai mon EgliseF Literally: “Thou art

Peter, and on this stone I will build my Church.” In order to

maintain the play upon the word “Pierre,'' the word “rock” is

omitted and a word substituted that signifies a stone.

The fidelity of the Vulgate is well retained in the Spanish

and Italian versions, and do not justify the Douay comment.

The French approaches the nearest to Rome’s annotation, but

there, as we have noted, instead of changing “Peter” into the

“rock,” the translators have changed the “rock” into a “stone,”

in order to make it agree with Peter.

How Should the Verse Be Rendered?

The translators of the King James version, in making

the passage to read, “And I say unto thee that thou art

Peter,” incorrectly worded the sentence. This freedom in

translation may at first appear trifling in the face of

harmonious English expression. The word Cephas, Peter, stands

in the verse as a mere name, without connotation. It should be

kept clearly in mind that though Jesus gave Peter this name,



Was Pe:te:r the Rock? 13

He never afterward addressed him by it, but always by the

name of Simon. The passage should read, “And I say unto thee,

that thou art a stone, and upon this rock.” Here another mis-

translation confronts us, to which the former has given rise.

Kindly bear with this important bit of philology. The Greek

article kai is often used as an adversative conjunction, in Eng-

lish, “but,” and so it must be used there, because Jesus mani-

festly contrasts petros, a movable stone, from petra, an

immovable rock. “But upon this rock,” rather “the rock” for

the Greek article is put to it, which always points to a par-

ticular person or thing, already known. The Greek word de,

rendered in English “also,” being a discretive conjunction, is

meant, therefore, to distinguish between things that are spoken

about. The whole verse will then read

:

“And I say unto thee, that thou art a stone, but

upon this, the Rock, I will build my Assembly, and

the gates of the underworld shall not prevail against

it"

Jesuit Jugglery

Before leaving this part of the argument, it might be

well to consider an ingenious plea put forth by the Jesuit,

Cardinal Bellarmine, to offset the evidence against the

Papal interpretation. Bellarmine argues and his line of

reasoning has been often reproduced since, that our Lord,

speaking in Syraic or Aramaic, actually used the same word

in both clauses, saying, “Thou art Kepka, and upon this Kepha

I will build my Church.” An American theologian employs

the argument thus

:

Now, clearly, these words are spoken to Peter—
to the same person, Peter, who had just acknowl-

edged the Saviour’s Divinity. All the old, musty non-

sense about the Greek words 'petros’ and 'petra* is

long on the scrap heap. Christ, speaking in the

Aramaic language, said, 'thou art Kepa, and upon this

Kepa I will build my church. And, just as clearly do



14 Was Peter the Rock?

these words contain a promise of the primacy.

Every scholar well knows it cannot be proved with ab-

solute certainty that our Eord spoke in Syraic or Ara-

maic. In any case, if the original words are not those

found in the Greek text of Matthew’s gospel, they are for-

ever lost to us. This plea is invalid. Moreover, no Roman

Catholic theologian is at liberty to raise the plea at all. He

is bound by the decrees of the Council of Trent to accept

the Vulgate as holy and canonical, and all controversies

are to be settled by that text.^^^^ The Old Latin version,

as we have seen, is against this argument.

But lest we be charged with evading the issue, we might

turn briefly to the words found in the Hebrew and the

Syriac. The words Cepa and Kepha, when they mean “rock”

or “stone,” are of the feminine gender, which Cephas or Peter,

as a masculine certainly is not. In the ancient Syraic version,

Peshito^'^^'^ the feminine pronoun is found with the second

Kepha,

This line of reasoning, generally adapted by present-

day Roman controversalists, implies that Matthew did not

quote the Saviour correctly. But the passage is in the form

of a direct quotation. Please observe, when the inspired

writers made use of a direct quotation from another lan-

guage, the exact words of the speaker are given, followed

by the explanation, “which being interpreted,” and then

(10) Sheehy, Rev. Patrick Joseph, D.D., The Primacy of St.
Peter. (International Truth Society) New York, 1942) p.
3.

(11) The Greek was as much in use by the common people of
Palestine in the days of Jesus as was the Aramaic. Greek
had been forced by Alexander the Great upon the coun-

tries he conquered, and at this time it was to be heard

not only in Greece but in Asia Minor, Palestine and in

Europe.

(12) Con. Trid. Sec. IV.

(13) Peshito, a translation of a Greek MS. of the New Testa-
ment into Syraic. The word “Peshiti,” means ‘'simple,”

“direct,” its root meaning is to “lay bare,” i.e., to make

plain.



Was Peter the Rock? 15

the meaning of the foreign tongue is given in the Greek.

When Jesus said to the daughter of Jarius, ''Talitha cumi/'

(Aramaic), the inspired record adds, “which is being inter-

preted, Damsel, I say unto thee arise,” Mark 5:41, See also

Mark 15:22; John 1:38,41; Acts 4:26,

In the use of this plausible argument based on what

the Lord might have said in the Hebrew or Aramaic, the

Church of Rome would make us dependent upon her feigned

oral traditionsJ^^^ It implies that the original monographs

which were written in the Greek are not our only sure

authority. We possess no valid copy of Matthew’s gospel
other than the Greek in which all the rest of the New

Testament was written. We cannot be led from this
position to the supposed words which Jesus might have

used. To argue on other than the Greek text would prostrate

the authority of the Holy Scriptures.

The Corner Stone

In Hebrew the word which is used for rock is tzur. It re-

fers particularly to flint, “an impassible, firm rock.” ''Hatzur^*

is the word we find in Deuteronomy 32:4, where the inspired

writer says : “He is the Rock, his work is perfect : for all his

ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just

and right is he.” “Ha” stands for the definite article “the,”

having the same import in Hebrew as in the Greek where it is

applied to Jesus as “the” Son of God. The passage quoted by

(14) The Council of Trent declared that: “All saving truth is
not contained in the Holy Scriptures, but partly in the
Scripture and partly in unwritten traditions, which, who-
soever doth not receive, with like piety and reverence as
he doth the Scriptures, Let him he accursed! Cone. Trid.
Sess. IV.

(15) A tradition, founded on a passage in Papias, (130 A.D )
credits Matthew with the composition of a book written
in Hebrew, from which a translation into Greek was
made. But Dr. Hugh J. Schonfield, in a work entitled,
An Old Hebrew Text of St. Matthew’s Gospel, points out
that the passage properly construed should read : “And I
say unto thee. That thou are Kepha, and upon this rock I
will build my assembly ; and the gates of the nether world
shall not prevail against it.*’ (Edinburgh, 1927) pp. 120,
121 .



16 Was Petkr the Rock?

Peter in his First Epistle, 2:6-8^ is taken from Isaiah 28:16

and 8:14, where the word “rock’^ is translated from the He-

brew t^ur.

A brief survey of the Old Testament Scriptures where the
word tmir occurs will show that in a number of places it has

reference to Christ Himself. Paul affirms, in speaking of God’s

ancient people, that “They drank of that spiritual Rock that

followed them: and that Rock was Christ.” I Corinthians 10:4.

Now, suppose we change the wording, and read : “They drank

of that Spiritual Rock, that followed them, and that rock was

Peter.” The change is not a whit more at variance with the

whole scope of Scriptures than Rome’s interpretation of “upon

this rock.” One is to Christian feeling as repugnant as the

other.

Again, in reference to the Remnant Church, Paul de-

dares that it was built “upon the foundation of the apostles

and prophets, Jesus Christ being the chief corner stone.”

Ephesians 2:20, Peter, likewise, speaking of the same church,

interprets Psalm 98:22, “This is the stone which was set at

naught of you builders, which is become the head of the

corner,” Acts 4:11. See also Romans 9:33; I Corinthians 3:11.

Luke, Mark and John

Knew Nothing of Supremacy

Now, the figure in which Jesus is represented as the

“corner stone” is incompatible with the theory that the

Church could be built upon Peter. If Peter were the “rock,”

then the “corner stone” must be Peter. Instead, therefore,

of Peter being built upon Christ, Christ would be built on

Peter. According to the Papal theory the prophecy of the

founding of the remnant assembly, “Behold, I lay in Zion,

for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner

stone, a sure foundation,” Isaiah 28:16, refers to Peter,— but
Peter applies it to Christ. So also Paul, Ephesians 2:19,20.

A point to be remembered is that Mark wrote his gospel

under Peter’s special direction. Mark says not a word



Was Peter the Rock? 17

about Peter being the “rock/^ or anything whatever about

primacy, or universal jurisdiction. If the omission is to be

laid to Peter’s modesty, then, here, surely the Popes of

Rome are quite unlike Peter in this respect. But was Peter

the man to suppress, or cause to be suppressed, the pub-

lication of any mark of his Master’s favor and approbation?

More likely the omission occurred because neither Peter

nor Mark attached to the declaration the importance and

meaning that the advocates of Papal autocracy ascribe to

it. In either case the absence of any reference to the “rock”

seems to be fatal to the Papal view. If the passage in

Matthew conveyed the authority for which the Roman

Catholic Church contends, modesty is no justification for

the omission. If it were intended to teach a prerogative,

then neither Peter nor Mark had any right to ignore or

omit it.

Luke says nothing about the “rock.” It is generally con-

ceded that Luke wrote under the direction of Paul. Are

we to assume that either Paul or Luke knew nothing of a

supremacy ?

John, in his gospel record, which was written thirty odd

years after the other three evangelists penned their narra-

tives, says nothing about the conversation between the

Lord and Peter. John wrote about A.D. 90, — the time
element is important, for the supremacy of Peter, if he

had any, must not only by then have been conspicuous and

acknowledged, but of the greatest ecclesiastical importance.

Facts Are Stubborn Things

Something of the circumstnces surrounding Peter’s con-

fession of the Deity of Christ is now to be considered.

This was made in Caesarea Philippi, which was the great-

est distance to which our Lord went from Jerusalem. In a

spot far remote from all danger, Peter confessed the Christ.

When, however, he was questioned about Christ at Jeru-

salem, at the hour and place of greater danger, Matthew



18 Was Peter the Rock?

says, “But Peter followed him afar off.” Matthew 26:58.

Peter is the only one that denied Christ. Peter, the foundation

of the Church, shakeri by the voice of a maid!

Is it possible that the Lord appointed Peter to be the

foundation of the Church, and then, soon after, called him

an adversary? Is it possible that Christ appointed a man

to be the supreme ruler of His Church, and directly after-

ward turned and rebuked him? Christ was compelled to

say, “Get thee behind me Satan.” Peter, with presumptions

zeal, had dared to gainsay the prophetic declaration of the

Saviour. So the “rock” is at once transformed into an

adversary. Stability vanishes and the father of lies appears

in its stead! Furthermore, according to the Roman Catholic

version of the Scriptures, Christ says, “Thou are a scandal

unto me.”/.y it possible that the Head of the Visible Church

should be a scandal to Christ

f

On different occasions there had arisen a “strife” among

the apostles as to who should be greatest in the Kingdom

of Heaven. Matthezv 18:1. They were anxious, it seems, about

the point of supremacy. But Jesus in every instance discour-

aged them. Then on several occasions afterward he inculcated

an humble equality. Thus when the mother of James and John

desired a superior place for her sons, which moved the other

apostles to indignation, it is recorded that, “Jesus called them

to him and said: Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles

exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise

authority upon them. But it shall not be so among you : but

whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

and wFosoever will be chief among you, let him be your

servant.” Matthezv 20:25.

Again, warning his apostles against the love of superior

station. He said: “Be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your

Master, even Chirst, and all ye are brethren,” Matthew 23:8.
m

And again, we read that “there arose a reasoning among

them, which of them should be greatest. And Jesus per-

ceiving the thought of their heart, took a child and set



Was Pktkr th^ Rock? 19

him by him, and said unto them, ‘Whosoever shall receive

this child in my name receiveth me : and whosoever shall

receive me receiveth him that sent me
;
for he that is least

among you all, the same shall he great/ '' Luke 9:46-48,

It should be noted that these incidents took place sub-

sequent to the declaration to Peter of which the Papacy

makes so much. Neither Peter nor his brethren could have

understood this promise of Christ, as the vast organization

of the Roman Catholic Church professes to do; for if they

had, they surely would not afterward have disputed which

of them should be the greatest. They could not have done

otherwise than look upon the question as perfectly settled

in Peter’s favor, and would most certainly have regarded

him with the greatest deference. Further, the Lord instead

of discouraging the whole inquiry would, according to

Rome’s supposition, have reproved their want of acquies-

cence in His declared will, and have reminded them that He

had constituted Peter the Supreme Governor already. But

here is no allusion to any superiority of Peter over the rest,

rather there is a stringent exclusion of any superiority. If

the Church of Rome’s theory is correct, our Lord could

not have used these declarations without specific reserva-

tions in favor of Peter, the “Prince of Apostles.”

In the matter of priority, Andrew ought not to be over-

looked, for he it was who first came to Jesus. James, not

Peter, was the first to be called to martyrdom, Acts 12:3.

Herod saw fit to put James to death, thus giving him the

most glorious of all primacy. But he seems to have been con-

tent with merely putting Peter in prison.

We have already taken up at some length the election
of Matthias. We saw then that in this first official act

(16) “Was the Appointment of Matthias Premature and Un-
warranted?” Questions and Answers, May, 1943. The Ro-
man Catholic Church has always a ready answer to any
objection raised against her interpretations. In a book en-
titled Another Thousand Radio Replies, given over the
Catholic Broadcasting Station. Sydney, Australia, by the
Reverend Leslie Rumble, D.D., in answer to the question,



20 Was Pktkr thk Rock?

of the apostolate all those present, and not Peter, nominated

and chose one to fill the vacancy left by the treachery of

Judas Iscariot. “They” appointed two; “they” offered up

prayer; “they” gave forth their lots. Matthias is numbered

with the eleven apostles. Why does not the evangelist write

here, “Peter, and the rest,” or “Peter and the apostles”? What

we do read is that Peter “stood up in the midst of the dis-

disciples.” No peculiar place is appointed to him, or taken by

him. Where, we would ask, is the primacy in this equal vote?

In the Acts we shall surely find proof of Peter’s primacy;

otherwise it exists nowhere. Consider for a moment the or-

ganization of the group; James and not Peter was regarded as

its leader. We read in one of Paul’s letters tTie names of the
apostles, each one designated in proper order, James, Peter

and John, Galatians 2:9

;

Luke, in referring to Paul’s visit to

Jerusalem, says he went, “in with us to James an^^ all the

brethren were present.” There is here no special mention of

Peter. He is certainly not regarded as being of more im-

portance than the others.

Peter, we find, was in some respects subject to the

direction of the apostles. Thus we read that when the

apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had

received the Word of God, they sent unto them Peter and

John. Observe, if you please, it was James with the others

that sent Peter and John into Samaria. Most extraordinary

treatment to be accorded to the Prince of the Apostles

!

Observe, if you please, that the apostles commanded Peter,

and Peter obeys. Where is the headship? Where is the

government? Peter quits the seat of episcopal authority at

“If Peter was head, why didn’t he appoint Matthias straight
out, instead of joining with the other Apostles in electing
him?’’ The answer given is, “It was under Peter’s direc-
tions that the election by ballot took place. We see here
the providential care of St. Peter for the flock. He has the
chief authority in this election, since all were entrusted to
him. But although he takes the initiative, he refrains from
using his full authority. He alone could have appointed
Matthias. But in a spirit of humility, and to avoid appear-
ing high minded, he graciously permits all to partake.”

(Rumble and Carty, Kensington, N.S.W. 1940) Question
342, p. 90.



Was Peter the Rock? 21

the bidding of those over whom he presides ! Imagine, if

you will, the bishop of one of the little dioceses about Rome

proposing to send the Supreme Pontiff upon a mission to

Florence or Naples. Shade of Innocent III

!

Again, draw upon your imagination. Picture, if you will,

the apostle Peter crowned, as was the present Pope, with

the triple tiara on the central balcony overlooking the

square of St. Peter, surrounded with all the pomp of the

Papacy, Cardinals, Archbishops, Abbots and representa-

tives and special envoys of many nations, the Noble and

Swiss guards, and in the presence of over a hundred thou-

sand spectators. Picture, if you will, Peter, robed in cope of

rich brocade, adorned with triple crown of gold, ablaze with

diamonds, emeralds and rubies, giving his Apostolic Bene-

diction to the kneeling throng, “Urbi et Orbi,”— (to the
City and the World), heralded by a blast from silver trum-

pets, all of which effectually destroy any analogy of the

man who said, “Silver and gold have I none.” How different

is all this from the Scripture record! The writer of the Acts

states that when Cornelius would have done obeisance,

Peter in horror exclaimed, “Stand up, I myself also am a

man.” Acts 10:25,26. No Pontifex Maximus here!

Jewish Converts Ignorant

Of Peter’s Supremacy
«

In the Acts, we read that when Peter returned from the

conversion and baptism of the gentile, Cornelius, “they that

were of the circumcision disputed against him.” Acts 11:2,

These Jewish believers, who still clung to the Mosaic law,

found fault with Peter and questioned the propriety of what

he had done. Neither he nor the converts who accused him

seem to have had any notion of his superior authority. Now

in all this, where is the least appearance of Peter’s supremacy?

What is here that looks like the Papal assertion that “Peter

bore the authority, not of a mere man, but of the true God,

holding the place of the Redeemer himself upon the earth.”?

Does he inform these ignorant people of the supreme authority



22 Was Peter the Rock?

entrusted to him by Almighty God, and of his right and duty

to rule the Church? His act of humility thus was a gross in-

fringement of Peter's prerogatives ! An error that he ought

immediately have corrected, not only on account of his own

dignity, or his Master’s honor, but the salvation of those who

were in the act of violating one of those articles which Pope

Boniface VIII was afterward to pronounce as indispensable

to salvation.

The Flock Arraigns the Chief Shepherd

What language from spiritual subjects to a spiritual

sovereign ! The supreme Head of the Church rebuked and

called to account by common believers! Is it possible that

those murmurers had never heard of Supremacy? Why
did not Peter assert his headship and threaten to excom-

municate them? It was his imperative duty to do so. Pope

Gregory VII, “in direct line of Peter,” speaking of the

sacred person of the occupant of the Roman See, declared

“the Pope ought to be judged by no man.” But Peter felt

bound to rehearse the matter from the beginning. Then,

by virtue of the reasons advanced, not his supremacy

,

“they

held their peace, and glorified God.”

Council at Jerusalem

Ignorant of Peter’s Infallibility

Again, a question had arisen regarding Gentile equality.

There was a demand for immediate and authoritative set-

tlement. Here, if anywhere, was a question of “faith and

morals.” Now, if ever, was the time for the supreme and

infallible head of the Church— if there were such a person
on earth— to come forward and give his sure and final
judgment. Did Peter give such judgment? Not at all. Peter

did nothing on his own authority. The record reads, “The

Apostles and Elders came together for to consider of this

matter,” Acts 15:6,

But what reason was there for all these men “consider-

ing” the matter? If the Papal theory is the correct one.



Was Pkter the Rock? 23

there was one among them who knew infallibly what ought

to be done. Furthermore, according to this theory he was

under solemn obligation as '‘the Vicar of Christ’* to impose

his supreme decision upon the whole Church.

If Peter were supreme and infallible, then this Biblical

first council of the Christian Church was utterly useless —
and worse than useless — for if it taught anything it
pointed to the fact that the Lord Jesus Christ had not

appointed anyone supreme ruler of His Church.

But who presided over this council? Peter was present,

but not in the chair. He spoke, but Barnabas and Paul

also spoke. The expression of his opinion did not bring the

council to a close. After due discussion and deliberation,

James gave his judgment on the matters discussed. The

letters that were then framed were sent not in the name

of Peter, but in the name of the apostles and elders and

the whole church. Manifestly, there was no supremacy of

Peter here. No primacy, not even precedence. It is to be

noted further that the “letters” which the council sent were

not written by Peter, nor were they written in terms which

he dictated. Nor were they sent in his name. He was simply

one among the rest, one among equals. ' These facts are

totally inconsistent and irreconcilable with the tenet of

Papal supremacy.

The expression, “obedience to the faith,’^ occurs several

times as descriptive of the results of the apostolic ministry,

Acts 6:7. But there is never a word about “obedience” to

Peter, as “Vicar of Christ” on earth.

The Holy Scriptures assuredly do not give Peter the

importance conferred today upon the Sovereign Pontiff.

Regarding the matter of infallibility, it should be noted

that on the occasion of the Lord’s transfiguration, Peter

was decidedly lacking in faith. The proposition he advanced

clearly proves this, namely, “Let us make here three taber-

nacles, one for thee and one for Moses and one for Elias.”

Matthew 17:4. Mark observes, “he wist not what to say.”



24 Was Peter the Rock?

Mark 9:6. Luke remarks, that he uttered it, “not knowing

what he said.” Luke 9:33.

Paul Ignorant of Peter’s Jurisdiction

Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, says of himself : “I

suppose that I was not a whit behind the very chiefest

apostles,” 2 Corinthians 11:5. He makes no exception, and

states no limitations to the meanings of his words. Surely, if

Paul had known any point in which Peter had any primacy

or supremacy over him, or the rest of the apostles, he would

never have used these words.

Then, again, in his Epistle to the Galatians Paul says that

when he went up to Jerusalem to confer with the apostles

who were in the ministry before him, and had been appointed

by Christ during His earthly ministry, they in conference

added nothing to him, “but, contrariwise, when they saw that

the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed to me, as the

gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter, and when James,

and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the

grace that; was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas

the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the

heathen and they unto the circumcision.” Galatians 2:7-9.

Bill of Particulars

Paul had been preaching successfully before he had

seen Peter. When he did meet him he added nothing to

him either in knowledge of the truths of the gospel, nor

yet in authority to preach. He states emphatically, “But I

certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached

of me is not after man. For I neither received it of man,

neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus

Christ.” Galatians 1:11,12.

The concurrence in accepting Paul’s distinctive ministry

to the Gentiles was a joint affair between the three, James,

Peter and John, with no hint of a superiority on the part

of Peter.



Was Pkter thk Rock? 25

In the Second Epistle to the Corinthians, Paul, in speaking

of his labors and sufferings in the cause of Christ, says : “Be-

sides those things that are without, that which cometh upon

me daily, the care of all the churches/’ 2 Corinthians 11:28.

He mentions nothing about Peter. He speaks of the care of

“all the churches.” Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles, the

Church of Rome most certainly was included. There is no

recognition of any subordination to Peter.

There is the striking passage in Paul’s Epistle to the

Galatians. Here Paul disapproves of the practice which was

being pursued by Peter and severely reprimands him for his

shameful vacilation and dishonesty. The discussion involved

the question whether men were justified by faith in Christ or

by the works of the law. Paul says, “I withstood him to the

face.” Galatians 2:11, In administering this sharp rebuke Paul

did so, ''before them all.” Galatians 2:14. Furthermore, he

says: “to whom we gave place by subjection, no, not for an

hour,” Galatians 2:15. Paul never could have used such lan-

guage to Peter, or with regard to him, if he had understood

at that time that any primacy or supremacy over the whole

Church, or over the other apostles, such as the present Pontiff

now claims, had been given to Peter. Here is the same

Peter, — twenty-five years after the ascension of Christ, ex-
hibiting the same identical weakness. Is this then the “rock”

upon which Christ built His Church?

It is inconceivable that Paul would have ventured to

“withstand” one whom he knew to be “the Vicar of Christ

on earth,” one secured from all possibility of error in mat-

ters of “faith and morals” by the divine gift of infallibility.

Anything more unlike the dealings of a supreme pontiff

with those under his absolute rule it would be difficult to

imagine. This becomes the more noteworthy if we consider

Paul’s great care and jealousy about intruding into any

other man’s field of labor,— “episcopal jurisdiction,” we

(17) The charge was a most serious one, that of dissembling.
The word “dissemble” is thus defined by Webster. “To
conceal the real fact, motives, intention, or sentiment, to
act the hypocrite.” The Primate of tli3 One, True, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church a dissembler

!



26 Was Pkte:r the: Rock?

should call it these days. Thus he says : “I have striven

so to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named,

lest I should build upon another man’s foundation.” Romans

15:20, It is evident that Peter had laid no foundation at Rome,

nor had he, in the opinion of Paul, any exclusive right or

prerogative there, otherwise he never could have said these

things had he known of, or acknowledged any primacy, or

jurisdiction over the churches to which he refers.

Paul writes at least eight epistles to the churches he had

founded, and gives instructions to Timothy and Titus with

regard to the administration of others. Therein is no

reference or allusion to Peter, and with as much freedom,

and in tone of as much authority, as if there had been no

personage as Peter within the range of his knowledge.

Peter also writes two epistles to those who were of Jewish

descent, scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Gallatia, Cap-

padocia, Asia and Bithynia, that is, throughout Asia Minor.

He writes, however, not as a Pope, but as “an elder” to

fellow elders. / Peter 5:1. Notice also, his directions in regard

to Church authority, “Neither as being lords over God’s her-

itage.” I Peter 5:2.

In his Second Letter Peter speaks of “our beloved Paul.”

In all this he recognizes Paul as equal both in regard to

authority as a teacher and his jurisdiction, as an apostle. This,

surely, is both unaccountable and unintelligible, if the writers

of the Sacred Scriptures had any such idea of Peter for which

the modern Catholic controversialist contends.

Another remarkable passage from Paul’s writings might

be cited. In his First Epistle to the Corinthians there is a

statement most damaging to the claims of Petrine supremacy.

He says, “For though ye have ten thousand instructors in

Christ, yet have ye not many fathers : for in Christ Jesus I

have begotten you through the gospel. Wherefore I beseech

you, be ye followers of me.” I Corinthians 4:15,26. These

words were written to the Church at Corinth because of the

spirit of division that was creeping into the assembly. Some

were claiming to be followers of Peter, others of Apollos.



Was Peter the Rock? 27

Paul rebukes them sharply. Mark his words, “Be ye followers

of me, even as I also am of Christ.’* I Corinthians 11:1, No

Petrine Pope here!

Now in regard to Paul’s own power and authority, we

read, “If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual,

let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you

are the commandments of the Lordl^ I Corinthians 14:37. Fur-

thermore, he writes, “According to the grace of God which

is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the

foundation, and another buildeth thereon.” I Corinthians 3:10.

He declares that he had received from the heavenly glory

numerous “visions and revelations of the Lord.” 2 Corinthians

12:1. Only Stephen and John besides Paul were favored with

post-ascension epiphanies of the Lord.

In an even bolder affirmation of his distinctive ministry,

Paul shuts out Peter. He does not say that he was called a

minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles. What he states is

radically different. He affirms that he is the minister. If this

statement does not exclude Peter, then we have yet to learn

wherein perfect clearness of expression consists. Rome’s anti-

Pauline hostility is historic. Protestants would do well to

examine the ground on which the divine authority of Paul’s

writings is based, for one of old said, “If 'the foundations be

destroyed, what shall the righteous do?” Psalm 11:3.

The Scriptures, as we have seen,<^^^ do not even so

much as say that Peter was ever at Rome. On the con-

trary, they create strong presumption that he was never

there. In speaking of his being at Babylon when he wrote

his first epistle is strong proof of this. Rome contends

that this “Babylon” was not in Asia, near the Persian gulf,

but Rome itself. There is nothing however mystical or

symbolic in Peter’s Letters. We find in John’s Apocalypse
highly symbolic figures of speech, but Peter’s writings are

simply pastoral. It were well to bear in mind that when Paul

wrote his several letters from Rome he was under the imme-

(18) “Was Peter Ever in Rome?” Questions and Answers,
February, 1943.



28 Was Peter the Rock?

diate eye of the Roman authorities. He does not call Rome
Babylon, but always Rome. Finally, the Scriptures are almost
completely silent about Peter after the council of Jerusalem.

Outside the Catholic necessity of Peter’s Roman residence
there is really no point to his ever having been at Rome.

Feed My Sheep

The Roman Church has made much of the passage in

John, where the Lord commissions Peter to feed His sheep.

Let us look at the circumstances. Peter, heedless of the

divine call to ‘'catch men,’' had induced several of the

apostles to resume their former occupation of fishing.

Three and one half years before, by the same lake, Peter

and the others had been called to preach the gospel of the

kingdom. At that time the Lord promised to supply all their

need. On the occasion, however, to which we refer they

had set forth on their own initiative, but had met with no

success. Jesus appeared unto them and repeated the miracle

which at first had heartened them to follow Him. By this

second miraculous draught of fishes he gently rebuked their

want of faith. He who had supplied all their need from the

beginning thus indicates that He would continue so to do.

He addresses Peter, reminding him of his failure. “So when

they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of

Jonas, lovest thou me more than these?” John 21:15. The in-

genious Catholic controversialist sees in this query the su-

periority of Peter’s devotion to the Lord, beyond that of the

other apostles. But the meaning is apparent. The Lord was re-

ferring to the nets — the means of the fisherman’s livelihood,
to things and not to persons.

Such, then, is the setting of the scene. Peter is ques-

tioned three times in regard to his love for Christ. On

Peter’s answer, repeated three times in the affirmative, the

Lord gives the charge, “Feed my sheep, tend my sheep, feed

my little sheep.” John 21:15-17. Peter had been in disgrace

and apostacy from the time he had thrice denied the Lord on

the evening of His trial. Are we to suppose that when Peter



Was Peter the Rock? 29

speaks of Judas as having fallen through transgression, that

he himself was exempt from condemnation?

The declaration of the Lord did, doubtless, restore Peter

to his former position and repute among the apostles. But

we must take into consideration the fact that these words

revert to those other “three’' in which Peter thrice denied

that he knew the Lord,— the second and third time, he
curses and swears, adding blasphemy to falsehood. Had not

Peter protested vehemently, “If I should die with thee, I

will not deny thee?” The Lord’s charge merely reinstated

Peter to the place he had forfeited by his cowardice. As

Judas fell from the apostleship by transgression, Peter fell

from it by denying the Lord with an oath. Peter, here,

stood before the Master as a culprit, reproached, but

spared; not, certainly, as the Prince of Apostles. The com-

mission, “Feed my sheep,’^ restored to Peter his apostle-

ship, and to his share in pastoral labors, but nothing more.

Again, the very last words of Christ which He addressed

to Peter, convey unmistakably the Lord’s reproof. Peter

evidently was jealous of the disciple whom Jesus loved.

For of John he asks the Lord, “And what shall this man

do?’’ John 21:21. Note the Lord’s answer, “What is that to

thee? follow thou me.” The passage will not admit of any

other interpretation.

A Brief Summary

Holy Scripture is silent about Peter’s supposed primacy

and jurisdiction. Peter assuredly was not elevated to the

high office while the Lord was on earth. In the case of the

appointment of Matthias as successor of Judas, the eleven

make the choice. On the day of Pentecost, Peter does not

stand forth in solitary Papal arrogance, but is joined by

“the eleven.” In the appointment of Stephen there is no

hint of Peter’s primacy. The apostles never allude to

Peter’s primacy or recognize it. There is not a word from

Peter intimating that he thought of it. James is seen to



30 Was Peter the Rock?

exercise an authority superior to that of Peter. Paul claims

and exercises an authority wholly independent of Peter.

Not to Peter but to Paul was given the doctrines of the

Church. Not to Peter but to Paul was it given to lay down

with authority the rules for Christian living and Church

government. Not to Peter but to Paul was given the rev-

elation of the great secret. Not to Peter but to Paul it was

given to “make all men see what is the dispensation of the

mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been

hid in God.” Ephesians 3:9. Not to Peter but to Paul was

given the exalted privilege to “complete the word of God.”

Colossians 1:25. Little wonder, then, that Augustine writes,

“When ‘Apostle’ is said, if it be not expressed what apostle,

none is understood' save Paul.” Little wonder that Chrysostom

declares, “When we say, ‘Apostle,’ we think of Paul, just as

when we say ‘Baptist’ we think of John.”

From a full survey of the Acts and the Epistles it is clear

that there is not the slightest evidence for Peter’s superior

authority. There is positively no proof there, or elsewhere

in Holy Scriptures, that Peter had any thought of any such

official pre-eminence. Nor, except for refuting the fantastic

notions of Rome, is there any reason for minimizing the real

importance of Peter’s ministry. In a subsequent article we

purpose dealing with the future ministry of the apostle,

under title, “Peter and the Restoration of Israel.”

To sum up : The traveller standing beneath the mighty

dome of St. Peter’s, resting upon its supporting piers in

such serene tranquellity, is filled with astonishment and

admiration. Its sublimity is beyond all other architectural

creations. There is no work of man’s hands that is similar

or second to it. Little wonder that Madame de Stael de-

scribed it as musique fixee (frozen music). The Latin inscrip-

tion on the frieze of St. Peter’s dome is anything but a

happy symbolism. The hoary shibboleth hung up high in the

air where it never could be kept aloft for an instant but for

the masses of masonr^^ erected by human hands, has no

foundation in fact. Long since we have ceased to regard the



Was Peter the Rock? 31

papacy as a divine institution. History and personal ex-

perience confirm us in the belief that it is but a long ex-

tended human experiment bolstered up by carnal ingenuity.

A Blueprint of the Future

Pope Pius XII, in a radio address to the world on the

occasion of his Episcopal Jubilee, May 13, 1942, saw fit in

these official words to reiterate the ancient claims of the

Church of Rome

:

When we think back to the early Church, only and

spotless mother of all churches, where better, we ask,

might the prayer “that they may be one,” re-echo in

more ringing tones than from this rock beside the

Tiber on which heaven’s favor has shone more bright-

ly and generously, once Providence had selected it

to be the Episcopal See of the first Peter and the

spiritual bastion of Christianity— on that river bank
whose annals, the glorious marytyrdom of the Prince

of the Apostles and the high privilege of having given

to his mortal remains their last resting place.

^ *

Where does our soul strengthen and stabilize? At

the Tomb of Peter, First Bishop of Rome. When we

kneel before that tomb and fix our thoughts on the

beginning of the Church, we seem to see the first

Pope, destined^y Christ Himself to be the corner-

stone of the church.

The divine mission of the Church, established on

the Rock of Peter, has no limits of space on earth,

and has no limits in its activity, but the limits of

mankind; but, like every age that passes, the present

moment presents to her new enterprises.

As the pillar and ground of the truth and guardian

by the will of God of the mandate of Christ, and the



32 Was Peter the Rock?

natural and supernatural order, the Church cannot

renounce its rights.^^^^

Pope Pius XII is widely regarded as a man of large

political experience, versed in the intricacies of Vatican

diplomacy. No one knows better than this highly cultured

Italian ecclesiastic how needful it is to couch Papal aspira-

tions in general language calculated to avert the suspicions

of liberal-minded peoples. Faced with a delicate inter-

national situation, the present Pontiff has shown the adroit-

ness of a Machiavellian strategist, and he can skate over

thinnest ideological ice with dexterity.

What Does the Pontiff Mean?

It is our conviction that the full meaning of this very

recent Papal utterance it not understood by the average

reader. In fact, the expressions used cannot properly be

weighed in the balance unless they are traced to their

origin. Only as we turn to the decrees of the former Popes,

and to the abundant writings of highly placed ecclesiastics

of the Roman Catholic Church, are we able to comprehend

their full significance. What does Pope Pius mean when

he says that the Church has “no limits on earth”; “no limits

to activity”
;
that is is the guardian by “the will of God of

the mandate of Christ?’^ In effect, the Pope, as we would

say in America, “wants to boss the universe,” if his words

mean anything.

Out of a whole host of testimony we shall call as our

first witness. Pope Boniface VIII, (1235-1303), to whose

life and labors The Catholic Encyclopedia devotes nine pages.

In a Bull entitled. The Holy See, meaning, “the Church,”

Boniface declared

:

Thus the Pope hath all power on earth, purgatory,

hell and Heaven, to bind, loose, command, permit,

confirm, depose, do and undo. Therefore, it is con-

(19) Pius XII and Peace, 1939-1943. National Catholic Wel-
fare Conference. (Washington, D.C., 1943) pp. 53-56.



Was Pktdr the: Rock? 33

eluded, declared and pronounced, to be of necessity

to salvation for every human creature to be subject

to the Roman Pontiff.^^®^

These all embracing claims are in turn interpreted in

the Annals of Cardinal Baronius, (1538-1607). The Catholic

Encyclopedia gives three pages to an account of this scholar’s

activities. Baronius says

:

The civil principality is subject to the sacerdotal,

and, God hath made the political government subject

to the dominion of the spiritual church. ^^1)

Another eminent annotator is Cardinal Bellarmine, (1542-

1621), a distinguished Jesuit theologian, to whom The Catholic

Encyclopedia) allots three pages. Ballarmine affirms

:

That by reason of the spiritual power, the Pope

has indirect power in temporal matters.

The temporal authority must be subject to the

spiritual power, whence, if the earthly power should

go astray, it must be judged by the spiritual.

Are These Antiquated Doctrines?

When, however, these and similar tenets are reprobated

by non-Romanists, the reply comes readily enough. It is

said, “No one denies that such teachings were in vogue in

the past, but the Catholic Church no longer countenances

them.” But, with an array of evidence before us, it is im-

possible to accept this statement. The Papal apologist

would have us brush aside these dogmas as mere specimens

(20) Unam Sanctam Boniface VIII. Lih. Sext. Decret. C. Fe^
lids Corp. jur. can. Extravag. Comm, v, VII. I, ed Fried-
terg, 1245. -Joseph F. Damberger, Roman Catholic his-
torian, raised objections to the authenticity of the Bull.
Unam Sanctam, but the Catholic Encyclopedia states:
“The genuineness of the Bull is absolutely established by
the official register of the Papal Briefs, and its incorpora-
tion in the canon law.” Vol. XV. p. 126.

(21) Baronius, Cesare, Ann LVII’.2Z.

(22) Bellarmine, Robert, Tractatus de polestate Summi Ponti-
ficis in rebus temporalis. Opera Omnia Lib. II. c.l. 1610.



34 Was Pktkr tees: Rock?

of “grotesque mediaevalism/' wrought in an academic mi-

lieu far removed from twentieth century realities. But these

tenets have never been officially repudiated; actually they

are the approved teaching of the Roman Catholic Church

today. To suggest, as has been so often done, that they are

the antiquated but discarded doctrines of the Middle Ages

is to contradict evidence at hand. These theories are found

in approved text books in use in Roman Catholic theological

seminaries. The works of several contemporary writers

might be mentioned here. For instance, the manual by the

Jesuit, Joseph Rickaby, entitled. Commentary on the Moral

Teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas the two volume treatise

by the Jesuit, Marianus de Luca, under title. Institutes of Pub-

lic Ecclesiastical and a book by the Archbishop, Alex-

ius Lepicier, on The Permanence and Development of

Dogma.^^^^

It should be recalled that the vast claims made by Pope

Boniface were, in large measure, based on the teachings of

Thomas Aquinas,— one of the first to affirm that it was
necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff in order to

obtain Salvation, and that the Pope is invested with tem-

poral as well as spiritual authority over all mankind, or, in

the words of the present Pontiff, “the natural and super-

natural order.^’ By decree of Pope Leo XIII, August 4,

1880,^2^^ the works of Aquinas were made the basis of

present instruction in all Roman Catholic universities,

academies, colleges and schools. Pope Pius X, in an en-

cyclical letter, dated September 1, 1910, warned all teachers

in Roman Catholic seminaries that, “to deviate from St.

Thomas is to run considerable risk.” And, later, on June

29, 1923, Pope Piux XI repeated this solemn warning.

(23) Rickaby, Joseph, Aquinas Ethicus. (London, 1911)

(24) Luca, Marianus de, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici Pub-
lid. (Roma, 1901)

(25) Lepicier, Alexius M. De Stabilitae et Progressu Dogmatis
(Roma, 1910)

(26) Aeterni Patris



Was Pe:te:r thk Rock? 35

The Right to Dominate Society

Returning, for a moment, to the utterances of the pres-

ent Pontiff, we would inquire what Pius XII had specifically

in mind, when he states : “The Church cannot renounce its

rights?” The answer to our question is supplied by the en-

cyclical letter of Pope Leo XIII, dated January, 1890J27)

wherein it is declared that the laws of the State are not

binding if they conflict with the interest of the Papacy.

Similar sentiments are to be found in two of his previous

Briefs, under date, February 4, 1880, and June, 1888.

Then, too, we find that the “rights of the Church” are

expressly laid down in The New Code of Canon Law, the

compilation of which was begun and finished under the direc-

tion of the two recent Popes, Piux X, and Benedict XV.

Canon Law aflirms that:

The Church has a native and proper right, inde-

pendent of any human authority.^

Independence from any human authority means, if it

means anything at all, a power which claims a right to

dominate society, politically or otherwise. It is because we

are witnessing a new plan of “Catholic Action” on the

part of the Roman Church in its effort to dominate society

that we feel amply justified in calling our readers’ attention

to certain facts relating to the all-embracing jurisdictional

claims of the Papacy.

Importance of Issue Underestimated

Now, it so happens that whenever these matters are

called to the eye of the average intelligent man or woman,

they are received with a tolerant smile. “The Papacy,” so

we are informed, “has long since been shorn of the power

and authority it once enjoyed and exercised in bygone

centuries. Frankly, there is really nothing we need now

fear from that quarter.” Unfortunately, the harboring of

(27) Sapientiae christianae

(28) Codex Juris Canonici. Canon 2214.



36 Was P^ter the Rock?

any such illusion is clear evidence that we present-day

Americans are forgetful and lacking in historic perspective.

Speaking generally, we as a people in this respect “know

only what we read in today^s newspapers.’* But our far-

seeing revolutionary statesmen were of a different mind.

Patrick Henry, it may be recalled, once strikingly said, “I

know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

That the vision of Hildebrand and Aquinas still inspires

the Papacy may be gleaned from another of the statements

made by the present Pontiff in the recent address to which

we have already called attention:

The Church remains, always the same, she does not

change in her dogma or in her strength. She is im-

pregnable. She is immovable, changeless, . . . yet she

moves, she takes new forms with the age in which she

goes forward, on her way progressing, yes, but not

changeless in her nature.

jjj 4:

This is the rock of truth and salvation whose lofty

and vast aspirations no one understood more thor-

oughly or described with greater eloquence than Leo

the Great, Pope and Doctor of the Church in those

memorable words, “Blessed Peter, Prince of the

Apostolic order, it assigned to the stronghold of the

Roman Empire, so that the light of truth which was

revealed for the salvation of all men might course

more efficaciously from the head itself through the

whole body of the world”

Let it be remembered that, now as in the past, the

Papacy has but one rule of action inspiring its ambitious

course. The goal is ever before it, namely, a world kingdom

under its own benevolent ecclesiastical dominion. The

Papacy never compromises that ruling ideal. It thinks

nothing of temporary failure or defeat. For centuries its

continuous proud boast has been, Roma semper eadem, “Rome

always the same.”



Was Pe:te:r the: Rock? 37

The Papacy Cannot Retreat

From Its Position

By decree of the Vatican Council, 1870, it is declared

that when the Pope speaks ex-cathedra, (i.e., literally, from

the chair of St. Peter), on “faith and morals” his official

utterances are infallible. His decrees are binding on the con-

science of every Christian and in a manner that allows of no

reservation, which includes all civil rights,

The Roman Pontiffs, in centuries past and in our own

time, definitely and at all points regard their decrees as

superior to the law of the State. In laying obligations on

the faithful. Pope Leo XIII, in an outspoken utterance,

affirmed :

If the laws of the State are manifestly at variance

with the divine law, continuing exactment hurtful to

the Church (the Papacy), or conveying injunctions

adverse to the duties imposed by (the Roman Cath-

olic) religion, or if they violate in the person of the

supreme Pontiff the authority of Jesus Christ, then

truly to resist becomes a positive duty, to obey a

crime.^^®*^

Pope Pius X maintained dogmatically that:

There is no< boundary fixed to the domain in which

the Church’s head can, and ought to, exercise his

will . . .

(29) The Roman Catholic Church maintains dogmatically that
politics and religion cannot be divorced, since politics is
the application of morals to public affairs and morals are
definitely in the realm of religion. This is clearly brought
out by Cardinal Manning, who said: “Now I may be
asked, why should the Holy Father (the Pope) touch on
any matter of politics at all? For this plain reason: be-
cause politics are a part of morals. Politics are nothing
more than the morals of society — the collective morality
of Christian men united together under social law. Politics
are morals on the widest scale.” Sermons on Ecclesiastical
Subjects — Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Archbishop
of Westminster (New York, 1873) Vol. H, p. 83.

(30) The Great Encyclical Letters of Leo XIII. (Bensiger
Brothers, New York, 1903) p. .185.



38 Was the; Rock?

It is indeed an utterly false and pernicious doctrine

that the interests of the State should be separated

from the interests of the Church^^^^

Thus, we witness the Pontiffs voicing the claims of their

predecessors in the See of Rome to have power and author-

ity over the whole Church and mankind, spiritual and tem-

poral. But is that sufficient? One who bears witness to

himself is not necessarily true. Solemn responsibility is laid

upon the claimant of Supremacy, Jurisdiction and Infalli-

bility to give evidence of the validity of his claims. Equal

responsibility rests upon the inquirer to examine the evi-

dence which the Roman Catholic Church professes to

supply.

The Papacy cannot retreat from its historical position.

It cannot consent to the least compromise without destroy-

ing the basis not only of its polity but of its spiritual

authority.

The Papal position follows with strict logic from the

primary dogma of divine appointment. This has been made

irreformable by the decree of Infallibility, and to vary, it at

any point would be to admit that Papal Supremacy and

Jurisdiction were not of divine origin, and thus to under-

mine the whole colossal structure.

Temporal Government of Papacy

Re-established

By the Lateran Concordat of February 11, 1929 be-

tween the Kingdom of Italy and the Vatican City State, a

government was re-established, based upon the theory that

the Pope is, by appointment of Almighty God, His sole

representative on earth, infallible in matters of faith, su-

preme in matters of morals and conduct, independent of

all human authority and subject to no human laws. The

Treaty reasserted the temporal and political power of the

( 31 ) Vehementer Nos. 1906 .



Was PnrtR the Rock? 39

Pope through the creation of the Vatican City State. All

this was recognized by the Italian government as the Pope’s

right and not conceded as a favor. Pontifical religio-political

sovereignty gives the Pope the right to interfere in the

affairs of all States.

The renewed assertion of such sovereignty proves that

the historic claims of the Papacy have not been abated;

that they are not merely held as idealistic philosophy, but

they are considered as immediate and Divine Right, to be

enforced whenever and wherever practicable. All of which

demonstrates that the Popes are not content with spiritual

leadership, but are resolute in their determination to get

down to the business of the world and wield political and

economic power.

The absolutism of the Papacy is based on this claim of

Divine Right, and this claim is maintained to be universal,

eternally unchangeable by any act of man, and to demand

the same loyalty as is given to God Himself.

Shape of Things to Come

One must be blind indeed if he cannot see that the

Vatican is putting forth herculean efforts to gain further

power and prestige. This extension of authority cannot but

be apparent to those who read the articles now appearing

in the newspapers and magazines on both sides of the

Atlantic.

Pressure is being brought to bear upon the American

State Department and the British Foreign Office, (indirect-

ly, of course, but no less effectively), to produce collabora-

tion with the Vatican in the solution of the problems con-

fronting post-war international reconstruction.

We have already referred to the present Pontiff as a
man of great intelligence, of large culture and political

acumen. Generally regarded as one of the ablest statesmen

of the age, the experience of his thirty-eight years spent in

the diplomatic service of the Vatican, as Nuncio and Secre-



40 Was Peter the Rock?

tary of State, is now of inestimable advantage in the at-

tempts being made to seat a Papal representative at the

Peace Conference.

Subjugate and Subdue

The Papacy has its well-laid plans to balance the loss of

its power and prestige in Europe and other parts of the

world by capturing the English speaking peoples. That this

statement is not the rantings of some wild-eyed bigoted

Ku Klux Klansman may be seen from the declaration of^

Cardinal Manning, which is the view of the present British

Catholic hierarchy. Addressing the Third Provincial Coun-

cil of the Archdiocese of Westminster, the Cardinal in bold,

unpatriotic utterance thus expressed himself

:

This nineteenth century will make a great epoch in

the history of the Church. It is good for us to be here

in England. It is yours, right Reverend Fathers, to

subjugate and subdue, to bend and break the will of

an Imperial race; the will which, as the will of Rome

of old, rules over nations and people, invincible and

inflexible. You have a great commission to fulfill, and

great is the prize for which you strive. Surely a sol-

dier’s eye and soldier’s heart would choose by in-

tuition this field of England for the welfare of the

faith. It is the head of Protestantism; the centre of

its movements, and the stronghold of its powers.

Weakened in England it is paralyzed everywhere;

conquered in England it is conquered throughout the

world. Once overthrow here, all is but a war of de-

tail. All the roads of the world meet in one point,

and, this point reached, the whole world is open to the

Church’s will. Englnad is the key of the whole posi-

tion of modern error.

(32) Manning-, Henry Edward, Sermons on Ecclesiastical Sub-

jects, (Dublin, 1863-73) Vol. I, pp. 166-167; printed also

in The Tablet, London, August 6, 1859. On another occasion
this same prelate spoke of the Pope as “the supreme judge

on earth, and director of the consciences of men — of the
peasant that tills the field and the prince that sits on the

throne ; of the household that lives in the shade of pri-

vacy, and the legislature that makes laws for the king-

dom. The supreme judge on earth of what is right and

wrong.” Sermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects. Vol. III. p. 97.



Was Peter the Rock? 41

That these sentiments are not merely the expressions of

a singular Ecclesiastic may be gathered from similar ut-

terance voiced in these United States. Dr. John Ireland,

Archbishop of St. Paul, Minnesota, speaking before the

Roman Catholic Congress in Baltimore, declared:

Our work is to make America Catholic. Our cry

shall be, “God wills it!” and our hearts shall leap

with crusader enthusiasm.

Dr. Orestes A. Bronson, one of this country’s ablest

writers, said in his Quarterly Review:

Undoubtedly it is the intention of the Pope to pos-

sess this country.
%

During the First World War, Pope Benedict XV chose
the present Pontiff, then known as Monsignor Pacelli, for

the delicate mission of Apostolic Nuncio. He employed

every scheme known to Vatican, diplomacy in an effort to

have the Pope represented at the Peace Conference, but

nothing came of this. The shrewd statesmen of Europe.,

foreseeing disastrous consequences, took energetic meas-

ures against the Vatican’s subterranean intrigue and back-

stairs plotting.

But the Papacy through all its strange vicissitudes knows

nothing of ultimate defeat. It is again making obvious at-

tempts to gauge prevalent opinion and is straining every

nerve and sinew through its propaganda agencies to induce

the United States and Great Britain to consent to a Papal

delegate at the projected Peace Conference, so that in this

way the “one voice of Christendom that speaks with

justice and absolute impartiality” may be heard. Upon the

acceptance of the Pope’s council the peace, forsooth, the

peace and happiness of the world for many generations

will depend

(33) The Rt. Rev. Fulton J. Sheen, D.D., in a radio address
sponsored by the “Catholic Hour,” stated, “There is no
doubt that the Church is returning from exile, and that a
great number of thinking people recognize that the Holy
See is the only spiritual hope of world peace.” Peace, pub-
lished by the National Council of Catholic Men. (Wash-
ington, D.C. 1943) p. 70.



42 Was Pe:te:r the: Rock?

In a discourse to the College of Cardinals, on June 2,

1942, Pope Pius XII permitted himself to become rhetorical

:

In this tempestous sea, amid the waves of hate,

the waves of love that transport and turn the faith-

ful to the Rock which is Peter’s See become the oil

that calms the troubled waves and prevents ship-

wrecks and upheavals. These are the promising signs

of victory over the tempest, of the dawn of salvation

and of the returning murmur of that placid zephyr,

to whose appealing voice no ear can remain closed.

In all fairness be it said the present Pope is not an

arrogant man. Ambitious he is
;
but his is not the ambition

of a self-seeking prelate. Like Hildebrand he is ambitious

for his office, not for himself. He by no means impresses

the thoughtful reader as being an adventurer making a case

out for himself; rather he appears to be a man conscien-

tious and sincere to a fault, but who, nevertheless, to our

way of thinking, is a fearfully deluded man.

What Price Post-War Reconstruction?

Dr. John A. Ryan, one of the outstanding figures in the

Roman Catholic Church in America, in a recent address

stated: “The majority of Catholics have abandoned na-

tionalism and become internationalists. That statement

is significant, for up to the time when Pope Pius XI reached

an agreement with Mussolini in the creation of the Vatican

City State, the activities of the Papacy were largely con-

fined to propaganda. Hitherto the Pope’s immediate pred-

ecessors were wont to echo the lamentations of Pope Leo

XIII, who never ceased to bewail the fact that in “being

stripped of the temporal sovereignty the Supreme Pontiff

is unable to accomplish his universal and divine mis-

sion.”(36)

(34) Victory and Peace, National Catholic Welfare Confer-
ence, (Washington D,C. 1942) p. 15.

(35T Ryan, John A. (Rt. Rev.), International Post-War Re-
construction. (National (Jatholic Welfare Conference,

Washington, D.C.) 1943.

(36) Apostolic Letter, March 19, 1902.



Was Peter the Rock? 43

Since the establishment of the Vatican City State, Cath-

olic propaganda agencies throughout the world have pro-

claimed the international position and policy of the Papacy,

and loudly affirm that the Pope can aid and attain Peace.

The Papacy, in voicing its claims to universality, stresses its

impartiality as between nations. It harks back to the times

of the Holy Roman Empire, when the Papal Church was

in fact supreme throughout Western Europe. At that time,

acting as the political heir of Imperial Rome, she delegated

to temporal rulers that share which concerns purely civil

affairs, while reserving the right to intervene, — as she often
did. The Popes have always claimed the right to control tem-

poral rulers, — to be Caesar as well as Pope. The Ossevatore
Romano, the Pope’s official organ, hailed the creation of Vati-

can City State as the prelude to the Pope’s becoming a su-

preme judge in international affairs. It said:

The Catholic Church is not a national church, but

a universal society and to the head of that society

men and all nationalities owe allegiance.^^^)

The Papacy claims that it is acting as an international

breakwater against the surging tide of anarchism. It stands

for authority. But for authority to be valid it must be prop-

erly constituted on a reasonable basis : it must be of a

qualit}^ that commends men’s reverence.

For more than a decade the Roman Catholic Church in

America has been waging relentless warfare on
^

“Atheistic

Communism.” Proletarianism is the Big Bad Wolf in the

eyes of the Vatican. Long since we have come to regard

its propaganda against Bolshevism as a carefully laid smoke

screen behind which it seeks to cover up its own inter-

national activities. Comparatively speaking, the emissaries

of the Red Internationale are far less dangerous than the

Jesuits.

(37) Ossevatore Romano, March 1, 1929.



44 Was Pktkr thk Rock?

In progressive countries like those of England and the

United States, for prudential reasons, the Roman Catholic

Church is on her best behavior. But let it be said at once,

there is not an abominable atrocity which she has com-

mitted throughout her long criminal past that she is not

prepared to repeat, when and where the circumstances ap-

pear to favor her age-long pursuit of world domination.

Let there be no mistake about that.

When in 1939, Eugenio Pacelli became Pope he chose

for his coat of arms and motto, a dove with an olive branch

in its beak and the words, '‘Peace in Justice.’’ It was not,

therefore, unexpected that in addressing an audience of

20,000 Italian workmen on Sunday, June 13, 1943, he availed

himself of the occasion to denounce the enemies of the

Vatican as “maliciously trying to throw on the Papacy the

responsibility for all the blood that has flowed in the battles

on land, in the air and in the sea, and in the ruins of

cities.

Hold, not so fast! One moment, please! Was it not

Cardinal Manning, the esteemed friend of “the prisoner of

the Vatican,” who, with the utmost complacency, declared

that the surest means of restoring the Pope to his rightful

place in the world, was by a “great world-conflagration”?

Did not this self-same prelate predict a “terrible scourge

of a Continental war,’^ and that “a deluge of blood” would

in all likelihood precede the solution of the “Roman Ques-

tion” ?

These sentiments are not the rabid invention of some

narrow-minded, bigoted Protestant. We would suggest that
the reader obtain a copy of William Ewart Gladstone’s

Vatican Decrees, wherein the Prime Minister of Great Britain

deals with Cardinal Manning’s bloody prophecy.<39)

(38) Bt. Louis Post-Dispatch, June 14. 1943.

(39) Gladstone, William E. The Vatican Decrees, Bearing on
Civil Allegiance, (London, 1874) p.x.



Was Peter the Rock? 45

In an article entitled, “Is Killing Murder’" published

thirty years ago,^^^^ we called attention to the following pro-

nouncement by the Third Council of the Lateran, and

which was repeated by Pope Urban II

:

We do not esteem them to be homicides who, burn-
ing with zeal for their mother, the Catholic Church,

against excommunicated persons, shall slay some of

thern.^^^^

We were accused at once of resurrecting an old bogey,
and of stirring the smouldering embers of religious strife. We

felt obliged to point out that as the nineteenth century

merged into the twentieth, a Jesuit theologian issued a

work in two volumes entitled. The Institutes of Public Ec-

clesiastical Law. Not only did it receive the official sanction

of the author’s Jesuit superiors, but it bore a letter of ap-

proval on the paper covers of each volume from no less a

personage than Pope Leo XIII. In this present-day Roman

Catholic textbook it is affirmed that:

Coercive power belongs to the Church. ... In this

age the right to inflict the severest penalties, even

death, belongs to the Church, which possesses the

right to adopt any means needful to promote its end.

. . . There is no graver offense than heresy . . . and

therefore it must be rooted out with fire and sword.

... It is a Catholic tenet which must be faithfully

held, and that the extreme penalty not only may, but

must, be inflicted on obstinate heretics . . . that in the

case of heretics, death is the one efficient means to

the security of society; the only remedy is to send

them soon to their place.^^^^

(40) Morgan, Harold Patrick, The Liberator, Ottawa, Canada,
1913.

(41) Decret Grat. Pars, ii, cans xxiii., qu. 5. ch 47.

(42) De Luca, Marianus, Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici Pub-
lici, Libraria Pontidea, Roma, 1901) Vol. II, p. 142, et seq.



46 Was Peter the Rock:

Then, too, in further evidence we printed excerpts from

another contemporary Roman Catholic theologian. In the

year 1908 a book entitled. The Stability and Progress of

Dogma, was published at Rome by Alexius H. M. Lepicer, a

Canadian by birth, who up to several years ago was professor

of Sacred Theology in the Pontifical College De Propaganda

Fide. Dr. Lepicer is now the Archbishop of Tarsus. The book

is prefaced by a letter from the Pope’s secretary, saying that

^‘the Supreme Pontiff was immensely pleased with the work.”

In reply to the question, “Should heretics be tolerated?”. Dr.

Lepicer answers

:

No one can doubt that they not only deserve to be

severed from the Church by excommunication but

they ought to be taken away from the midst of the

living by death. . . . Wherefore, as soon as anyone

makes a public profession of heresy and endeavors to

pervert others by words or example not only should

he suffer the greater excommunication, but also he

should be justly put to death, lest he should destroy

very many by his pestilential contagion.

There is much more to the same purpose in these books,

but enough has been given to show that the Church of

Rome is indeed as the present Pontiff proudly boasts,

“changeless,” that it is, in fact, the same in the twentieth

century as it was in the thirteenth and fourteenth.

Under the foregoing circumstances, it seemed necessary

that we present sound Scriptural reasons why we decline

to acknowledge the Supremacy, Jurisdiction and Infallibility

of the Roman Pontiffs, and declare ourselves forthrightly

in regard to that power of wFich Macaulay in one of his

essays says, that “among the contrivances which have been

devised for deceiving and oppressing mankind, it occupies

the highest place.”

(43) Lepicer, Alexius H. M., De Stabilitate et Progressu Dog^
matis, Typographia Editeia, Romana, 1908, pp. 173-178.



Was Peter the Rock? 47

A final word. In summing up the case against political

Romanism, the great German scholar, Dr. Adolf Harnack,

formerly Rector of the University of Berlin, says

:

As an outward and visible church and a State

founded on law and force, Roman Catholicism has

nothing to do with the Gospel, nay, it is in funda-

mental contradiction with it. That this State has

borrowed a Divine lustre from the Gospel, and finds

this lustre extraordinarily advantageous, cannot avail

to upset the verdict. To mix the Divine with the

secular, and what is innermost in man with a political

element, is to work the greatest mischiefs, because

the conscience is thereby enslaved and religion robbed

of its solemn character. It is inevitable that this

character would be lost when every possible measure

which serves to maintain the earthly empire of the

church— for example, the sovereignty of the Pope
is proclaimed as the Divine Will. . . .

NO ONE WHO LOOKS AT THE PRESENT
POLITICAL SITUATION CAN HAVE ANY
GROUND FOR ASSERTING THAT THE POWER
OF THE ROMAN CHURCH IS ON THE WANE.(44)

(44) Harnack, Adolf von, Das Wesen des Christentums, (Ber-
lin, 1900) pp. 283-5.

Questions and Answers

Pamphlet Series

No. 1. Is the Supreme Deity of Christ a Theological

Error ?

No. 2. Christ, the Imperative Need of the Hour.

To be published:

No. 4. The Church Not the Subject of Prophecy.

No. 5. Was the Appointment of Matthias Premature

and Unwarranted?

No. 6. Did Paul Write the Epistle to the Hebrews?



To be well informed. Know your Bible

Your Problems Solved
For that Bible question that has puzzled you,

there is an answer

QUESTIONS AND
,

ANSWERS
_

(Impartial Constructive Authentic)

A Periodicail Devoted to the Exposition of the Sacred Scrip-

tures which Recognizes the Truth as its Sole Monitor

Edited by Harold P. Morgan

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS is written throughout
by those who have earned the right to speak with authority.

Our aim is to disseminate biblical information o'{ general

interest to earnest readers of the Sacred Scriptures. QUES-

TIONS AND ANSWERS is conducted by Dr. Morgan and
a group of experts in the fields of biblical research.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS, while conforming in
’

every particular to the exacting rules of sound biblical

scholarship, is, nevertheless, edited and written throughout

in simple, direct style, so plain that the average Christian

man and woman is able readily to grasp its meaning at a

single glance.

One of our chief functions as a nonpartisan, nonprofit

institution is to interpret conditions, which at a given mo-

ment are of critical concern to the general welfare of the

Church.

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
is issued by the Committee on Publications for the

Biblical Information Bureau, Bloomington, Illinois.

Special Introductory Offer of Ten Copies for One Dollar.
Address all correspondence regarding subscriptions to Dr.

Harold P. Morgan, P. O. Box 185, Bloomington, Illinois,
U.S.A. Gifts intended for the Sustentation Fund should be
mailed to Mr. M. F. McLaughlin, Chairman of the Com-
mitte on Publications, 1912 N. 26th, Kansas City 2, Kansas,

U.SA.