Wasn’t the papacy invented centuries later?

01Your verse first

“Other foundation no man can lay”

“For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid: which is Christ Jesus.”

Read fairly: Christ alone is the foundation of the Church. Many Protestants read the “rock” in Matthew 16 as Peter’s confession of faith, or as Christ himself, and see papal claims as growing up centuries later, around popes such as Leo the Great.

That reading has ancient support, and it is fair to say so.^9,10 St John Chrysostom explained the rock as “on the faith of his confession.”⁹ St Augustine wrote: “On this rock, therefore, He said, which you have confessed, I will build my Church.” He went on: “For the Rock (Petra) was Christ.”¹⁰

The Catechism itself holds more than one reading together: on the rock of the faith Peter confessed, Christ built his Church, and the Lord made Simon, whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church.^11,1

Catholics agree Christ is the foundation. The question is what he built on it.

02The Catholic reading

The rock and the keys

“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.”

Scripture also says the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, with Christ as the chief cornerstone.¹³ The Catechism teaches that the Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the rock of his Church, and gave him the keys.¹

“He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.”

Then the evidence question: did anyone act as if Rome had a special role, early on?

03Before Leo

The first two centuries

Around the year 96, when the church in Corinth was split, it was the Church of Rome that wrote to set things right, through St Clement.²

Around 180, Irenaeus listed the bishops of Rome back to the apostles, with Eleutherius “in the twelfth place from the apostles.”¹⁵ The Catechism quotes him: “For with this church, by reason of its pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord.”³

There were limits too, and they matter. When Pope Victor tried to cut off the churches of Asia over the date of Easter and declared them excommunicate, other bishops were not pleased. Eusebius records words of theirs “sharply rebuking Victor.” Irenaeus, he says, “fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God.”⁴

So Rome’s voice carried weight, but it was not simply obeyed without question, and the forms of its authority developed over time.^4,5

So what is left to disagree about?

04The real disagreement

Where we think it lies

Not whether Peter was prominent; the Gospels show that. The question is whether his role was a personal privilege or an office meant to continue.

The Church teaches that the office the Lord gave to Peter alone was “destined to be transmitted to his successors.”¹⁷

It is also honest that for many centuries East and West followed their own ways in a brotherly union, with the Roman See acting as guide by common consent when disagreements arose.⁵

“Confirm thy brethren.” Catholics believe that prayer did not end with Peter.