What does it mean for a pope to be infallible? Didn’t Peter err in Antioch? In this episode, Trent concludes his discussion with Steve Ray on the papacy.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Council of Trent Podcast, a production of Catholic Answers.
Trent Horn: If you heard yesterday’s episode, the previous episode of the Council of Trent Podcast, you’ll know that our sound engineer, Nick, is taking some well deserved time off to be with family. His wife just had their second baby, so congrats to them. Very happy for them. So we’ve preloaded a few interviews for you that I think you’ll really enjoy. This is part two of my interview with Steve Ray on how to defend and explain the papacy. Steve is one of my favorite Catholic apologists, especially when it comes to this issue. I always enjoy when I get the chance to run into him at places like the Franciscan University of Steubenville at their Defending the Faith Conference. We were on a Catholic Answers Live together actually in California at a Legatus Conference not too long ago as well.
Trent Horn: So I hope you enjoy the conclusion of this interview and be sure to check out trenthornpodcast.com for access to bonus content. If you are a silver level subscriber or higher, you get early access now to my new trend track, How to Explain LGBT Issues, a Catholic guide to explaining LGBT issues. Otherwise, if you’re not a subscriber, you can get a copy of that at shop.catholic.com, I believe tomorrow. It should be going up on June 28th. So without further ado though, here is the conclusion of my interview with Steve Ray on the papacy.
Trent Horn: All right, well there’s some argument because the idea being Peter’s the first Pope, so he would be in Rome, the first Bishop of Rome. Many Protestants when they talk to Catholics will say, well there’s actually no evidence in the Bible at all that Peter was ever even in Rome. And they’ll say other things like for example, Paul never mentions Peter in his letter to the Romans. So how important is this to the idea that Peter has this special place and is the first Bishop of Rome and how should we go about reacting to this argument?
Steve Ray: Well first of all, we should take a look at scripture itself, but then realizing that scripture is not a complete handbook of everything Christian and Catholic. It is very limited in actually what it tells us. Yes, it’s the inspired word of God, but it doesn’t tell us everything that we need to know. And we also then can look at another source, and how did the church organically grow? This is a plant that Jesus planted, the seed that’s planted in the ground and now it begins to grow. And Jesus even said in his parables that it’s like a mustard seed and it’s small, but it grows and grows and it’s pretty soon a tree that covers the whole face of the earth where all the birds can build nest. So we look not only to what scripture says, but how did the church itself organically begin to grow?
Steve Ray: Was there a papacy? Was Peter recognized from the very beginning as being the first leader of the church? And the answer to that is yes. In the early church, and we’ll talk about that in a minute, in the early church, it was definitely, Peter was considered to be the head Bishop in a sense. He is the leader of the church. He has authority from God, and that it resides in the Bishop of Rome. But in scripture you see it as well. What does Paul call Peter? When he’s referring to him, say for example, in first Corinthians and in Galatians, he refers to him as Cephas. There’s often times given us the idea that Peter and Paul didn’t like each other and Paul had a very kind of a low attitude about Peter. If that was the case and he was trying to diminish the authority of Peter, he would have called him Simon.
Steve Ray: I went to see Simon and I met with Simon, or Simon this. He doesn’t. When he refers to him, he refers to him except on one occasion only, the exception, he refers to him as Cephas, the rock. In other words, Paul says, I went up to Jerusalem and I was there for two weeks. I didn’t talk to anybody else. I spent all my time with the rock. This is how he refers to Peter. And you also see this in the book of Acts in chapter 15 where did we have really the first ecumenical council. I know we call Nicea, in 325 the first ecumenical council, but this was in theory really the first ecumenical counsel because the apostles all came back together in Jerusalem and they had a very important decision to make whether Gentiles had to be circumcised to become Christians or not.
Steve Ray: That’s not the discussion here. The discussion is how was that determination made? Peter stood up among them all, the apostles and the elders, in the church in Jerusalem at this council and he gave the theological basis for the fact that the Gentiles did not need to be circumcised in order to become Christians. And he does it seemingly in contradiction to the whole Old Testament which says you have to be circumcised. Peter said, I tell you, no, you do not need to be circumcised. And then James stands up, who was the cousin of our Lord, the half brother of our Lord or whatever it is. He stands up and he makes a ruling then as the pastoral advisor, so to speak. He was speaking in a pastoral sense, not one of having the ultimate authority. James stands up and he says, okay, let’s summarize what this council has told us, and he quotes two authorities.
Steve Ray: He quotes Joel from the Old Testament about how the Holy Spirit is going to be poured out upon you and your children and the second authority he quotes as equal is the words of Peter because Peter is the head of the church.
Trent Horn: So this goes against the idea of that Protestants will say, Peter didn’t have special authority here, that James was really the one running the show.
Steve Ray: Non contraire. See, at one point Peter gave up the the bishopric of Jerusalem, the way John Chrysostom, the great doctor the church says it is that Peter, that he left that office so that he could become the Bishop of the world, the teacher of the world. In other words, Peter didn’t stay the Bishop of Jerusalem. That was way too limited. When the church grew beyond Jerusalem, Peter had to step out and become the bishop beyond there. And eventually not only a Bishop of Antioch, when the church spread up there to the Gentiles, but then when it goes to Rome, Peter becomes the Bishop of Rome, and that’s where the church has its headquarters from that point on.
Trent Horn: Now, how should we answer though when people say Peter wasn’t in Rome? I mean, in verse 1 Peter 5:13, the letter we have from Peter, he refers, he says, she who is in Babylon chosen together with you sends her greetings, as does my son Mark. Mark as we know is the traveling companion of Peter and the author of the gospel of Mark. So what does this phrase mean when Peter’s talking about she who is in Babylon?
Steve Ray: First of all, let’s establish the fact that the Protestants usual argument against Peter being in Rome is that it never says it in the Bible that he’s in Rome.
Trent Horn: Right.
Steve Ray: So that somehow because it never mentions he was in Rome, that means he wasn’t. That’s like saying because it never mentions that Thomas went up into the Armenian area and eventually over to India, that means he didn’t go. In other words, none of the apostles went anywhere because the Bible doesn’t mention any of the others going anywhere. So from that line of thinking, none of the apostles went anywhere and the church and never got evagelized.
Trent Horn: So that would be a faulty assumption to think if the Bible doesn’t tell us that it didn’t happen.
Steve Ray: Exactly. But we know from several sources that Peter did, that he left Jerusalem and he was in other places. And this passage here actually is quite significant because Babylon was the country that terrorized and oppressed the nation of Israel. The church is the new Israel. Rome is the country now oppressing and persecuting the church, and it obviously got the nickname of Babylon. That was the code word. And others also, in my book, Upon This Rock, I go into great detail on this, that there were many that believed that if they knew that Peter was in Rome, and obviously he was hiding because it was dangerous. People were being killed for being Christians. They don’t want Peter to be killed. He’s so important. He is the teacher. So they would say that Babylon became a code word for Rome because it was the persecutor of the church, but there was no big church over in Babylon and Peter wasn’t there, obviously.
Steve Ray: So what’s he saying here is the church, she is referring to the church. The church that’s here in Rome, together with you, sends greetings as does my son Mark. Well, we know that Mark was considered the son of Peter because he would baptize him. He’s a spiritual son. And when he says that she who is in Babylon, that means the church who’s today in Rome, we all greet you, implying of course that Peter was in Rome. And there’s another passage that just says Paul never mentions him, but in a kind of a one way he does. And I also, I do this in great detail in my book, Romans 15:20 says, Paul says, I aspire to come and preach the gospel to you in Rome, but I wanted to go where Christ had not already been named so that I would not build upon another man’s foundation.
Steve Ray: Now does that mean? That means that in Rome, the church had already been built. Where, how had it been built? Upon another man’s foundation. What does that mean? Well, the book of Ephesians says that the church is built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets. In other words, I think this is a way of saying Peter has already been there. You already have an Epistolic foundation, and who would have been there? Well, the history tells us it was Peter himself. So I’m going elsewhere to preach the gospel where a church already hasn’t been built. And then he talks about going to Spain. So in a way he does speak about Peter being in Rome in Romans chapter 15:20, although he doesn’t name him. And there are various reasons, there are various speculations why he would not want to name Peter as that position, possibly also because of his safety.
Trent Horn: Right. So let’s then move beyond what it’s been recorded in the New Testament then. And I think many Protestants when they talk about this, can kind of gloss over this important witness of the early church towards the idea that the office of the papacy exists, or that the Bishop of Rome had a primacy. A lot of Catholics can stumble when certain big worded terms they throw at them. You’ll hear Protestant apologists say there was no monarchical episcopate in the time of the early church in the first two or even three centuries. What are they talking about and what do the early church fathers actually say on this issue?
Steve Ray: Well, there’s a certain mentality among Protestants that the apostles were kind of like lone rangers and they all went out and establish independent Baptist churches. This is kind of my mentality when I was a Baptist. There’s is no overarching structure or organization. There was just these independent churches. Peter went out and started some. Paul went out and started some, and they’re all kind of like independent Baptist churches that all functioned independently of each other. But that is not at all the way that the church functioned if you look back at the early church. Even Paul did not view that he could go out and do something on his own, like the lone ranger says, that I came back to Cephas, the rock, to receive the right hand of fellowship to ensure that I was preaching my gospel not in vain.
Steve Ray: I came to get his approval. I came to get the head of the church’s approval, his handshake and his commission and so to speak, to be able to do this. Now, the early church right from the very beginning, the the episcopate means the bishops and a lot of people say, well the Bishop is just a pastor of a church. I mean, it’s like the Baptist pastor here. He’s an overseer of that little group over there on Main Street. But in scriptural terms, episcopate is someone who’s had hands laid on them and they have an official authority, authority that’s binding upon the congregation. And as the church grew, that episcopate grew. And that was the Pope, Peter had the authority over all the church, and then each diocese had a Bishop who had authority over that. And then they had others who are pastors or priests of the local churches, and the early church understood this.
Steve Ray: See for me, Trent, what was so important, I had to prove it from the first century, because if I could prove that there was a missing link in the chain of authority, I would not have to become a Catholic. And I didn’t want to become a Catholic. It’s the last thing I wanted to do because that means I have to submit myself to something. And I didn’t want to do that. But I went back to the first century because here you’ve got the Old Testament and the New Testament. Okay, I know what they say. And then you’ve got, kind of the third, fourth century where there’s Pope’s are being pretty obvious. But what about the first and second century?
Steve Ray: So in my book I made a special point of doing two things. One, proving Peter was in Rome. I said, let’s put this to sleep once and for all. Was Peter in Rome? I go through all of the evidence and I show that the early church fathers, first and second century, and into the third, it’s unanimous that Peter was in Rome, that he built the church in Rome, and that he died a martyr in Rome and that he was buried in Rome. That is uncontested for anybody who has two brain cells that connect and have any interest in history whatsoever. It is unanimous that Peter went to Rome, was the Bishop of Rome and died in Rome a martyr. That I almost feel silly even bringing that up because it is so established in history.
Steve Ray: Then you go to the writings of the fathers. For example, I wanted to do the first two that are extensive. Ignatius of Antioch who died a martyr in Rome and Clement of Rome who also is buried in the church of San Clemente, 300 yards from the Coliseum. These men in their writings, and I have a whole chapter on it, the very first witnesses, both acknowledge the primacy of Peter in Rome, the authority, the Bishop of Rome. And you can’t get a more clear statement about the fact of there are bishops, one bishop in each diocese, and the Bishop has his priests and his deacons, as you do in Ignatius of Antioch. And Ignatius died around 107 AD, eaten by lions in Rome. And in his letters, he wrote seven letters, it is so clear that the whole structure of the Catholic church is exactly what we have today. That goes all the way back to the first century.
Steve Ray: He talks about bishop, priests, and deacons. He talks about Rome being a special church. He writes to other churches, Smyrna, in Laodicea, in Ephesus and to his friend, Polycarp. But when he writes to Rome, there is a certain reverential deference, I do not write to you in the sense of teaching you, Rome. You are the teacher of the world and you preside over the churches. It’s very clear that he has a very special understanding of Rome being different than all of the rest of the churches.
Trent Horn: And he seems to treat the Roman church different. If you read the greeting in his letter to the Romans compared to his other letters, it’s very effusive in praise. He speaks of the Romans worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of highest happiness, praise, obtaining every desire, the church which presides over love. Talk about this, that he acknowledges this church is presiding over others.
Steve Ray: Yes, and the word love, many scholars believe that that’s a synonym for the church. You preside over the church. You’re the shepherd. I am a bishop, yes, Ignatius is saying. I am the Bishop of Antioch and I come from the apostles. The apostles laid their hands on me. John Chrysostom says that it was the apostle Peter who laid his hands on Ignatius, and Ignatius did not have a Bible or catechism. How did Ignatius know about the church? How did he know about what was happening? How to baptize, what to do on Sunday, how you get saved, what the structure of the church is? How does he know? Because he learned it from the apostles personally. Their words were still ringing in his ears. This is how Ignatius knew and he’s writing to Rome as a church that you preside over love, you preside in love over the church and you have that position. And I don’t presume to teach you because you are the teacher of the world.
Trent Horn: Let’s talk about the other reference we have there of the early church. We know in the succession of the bishops of Rome, the Popes. The first was Peter, then Linus, then Cletus or Anacletus. The name can be shortened. And the fourth Pope is someone named Clement of Rome. And we actually have one of his letters. How does that letter point towards the idea that the Bishop of Rome had a special primacy?
Steve Ray: I wish we could just read all the quotes. They’re just magnificent. But this letter was written, general scholarships says 96 AD. This is still first century. Jimmy Akin makes a very good case along with a lot of others that it was written prior to 70 A, prior to the destruction of the temple of Jerusalem, so maybe 60 to 70 AD. Very, very early. In either case, I’m not going to argue the dates because in either case, it’s the first century writing and Clement is most likely a convert of St. Peter’s. When I do my movies, it’s called the Apostolic Fathers Handing on the Faith.
Steve Ray: I follow Clements and Ignatius, these guys, and I show that Clement was probably baptized by Peter in the Tiber River in Rome, a Gentile convert to the faith, and he rises to the level of bishop. And the list that Irenaus, another father of the church says, Peter, Linus Cletus, Clement. And Clement is a bishop of the church. He’s the Bishop of Rome. Probably had some other auxiliary bishops with him because he speaks as we, which may be just the kind of the plural of authority or it could be that there were auxiliary bishops with him like major archbishops have today.
Steve Ray: And when he writes, he’s writing in an apologetic way saying, I’m so sorry. I knew about the problems that you’re having over a thousand miles away, 1,600 miles away. But there’s nothing that I could do right now to help correct your problems because we’ve been having our own sufferings here. But now that I have time, I’m going to write to correct your problems and respond to your inquiries. He’s writing as someone who has authority over another church that’s over a thousand miles away. John the Apostle is still alive at this time, and he’s less distance away. Why wouldn’t the church of Corinth write to John, who was an apostle? He’s the Bishop of Ephesus at the time, not too far away.
Steve Ray: Why does the church of Corinth right even farther away, all the way to Rome, to Clement? He’s not an apostle. Because they recognize the authority of the church of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome. And the Bishop of Rome writes back, Clement saying, I’m sorry we haven’t had a chance to address the issues in your church. Wait a minute. Who is the Bishop of Rome to tell the Bishop of Corinth to do anything? Aren’t they independent churches? Who is to presume that Bishop of Rome has authority over anybody other than the people of the church of Rome.
Trent Horn: It sounds like there’s some kind of a hierarchy among the churches.
Steve Ray: It certainly does. And he says, I’m sending you my legates and you better obey what we, with we and the Holy Spirit tell you. This is papal fallibility, what you’re hearing here. The Holy Spirit and us direct you to do this, and if you do not obey us and the Holy Spirit, you will be in no small sin. We are sending our legates, which is an official term. It’s what a empire did. It’s what a king did. He sent his representative, his legates, to somewhere else. And he says, I’m sending my legates to you. Do what they tell you. And he also makes a comment in there about succession, which is beautiful. I’m just going to paraphrase it because we don’t have time to read the whole thing, but he says, this is what the apostles taught us, that when they died, other men were to succeed them in their sacred office.
Steve Ray: In other words, their succession, the apostles taught them that when the apostles themselves died, other men would succeed them to their office. And Bishop Clement of Rome is saying, and I am one of those. In fact, I am the successor of Peter and I’m here to judge you right now. Now, one of the interesting things is how did the church of Corinth respond to this letter of authority, the letter of jurisdictional authority? How did the church of Corinth respond to it? For the next hundreds of years they read that letter at mass equal to the rest of the books of the Bible for the first couple hundred years before the canon of scripture was closed. The Corinthians read this letter of Clement as an authoritative letter, and no one challenged his right to exercise that authority over the church of Corinth.
Trent Horn: Okay, well I think we’ve seen Steve, that there’s a lot of evidence and for the papacy, for the primacy of Peter, the Bishop of Rome is not one among equals, but is has some kind of authority over the churches, the churches, the pastor over the church that Christ is entrusted authority to. And that this authority goes to each of Peter’s successors, to the present successor today, at least at the time of this recording, Pope Francis. So my next question is this, talking about the papacy, I think one thing that Protestants kind of flare up about is the idea that the Pope isn’t just a pastor, but he has the special charism. He’s infallible. The idea of papal infallibility, though of course that charism applies to the church as a whole. Help us understand. What does papal infallibility mean and how do people misunderstand it?
Steve Ray: Okay, we can discuss what it means and maybe even more importantly what it doesn’t mean, and a lot of times there’s the attitude that the Pope can predict the baseball scores. He should have been able to predict earthquakes and terrible storms and such because if he’s in fallible, why can’t he do all of this? Or it is implied that it means that he’s perfect, that he’s impeccable without sin, that he has this ability to rise above the rest of us and his humanity and have all of this. But the fact is is that it doesn’t mean any of those things. The gift or charism of infallibility is actually a negative protection. It’s a negative promise, not a positive one that whatever he says is correct. Basically, it’s what happens when I write my books, and I’m assuming yours as well. I wanted an imprimatur in my book, not because I needed it, but because I wanted to express my subjection to the authority of the church and I wanted people to know that I did that.
Steve Ray: I had an imprimatur. When my Bishop read my book and gave me an imprimatur, he was not saying it’s a good book. I really like this book. It’s accurate in everything it says. It’s timely and beautifully written. The bishop did not say any of that with his imprimatur. What his imprimatur says is that in this book, there are no glaring theological errors.
Steve Ray: In other words, I read this book and it may not be timely. It may not be beautifully written. I may not even like the book, but one thing that I’m certifying here with my imprimatur is that there’s nothing in this book that can mislead a Catholic into heresy or error. That’s simply what it means. So when the Pope has the charism infallibility, it does not mean that he’s timely, eloquent, or that everything he says is correct. It means that under certain circumstances, or certain criteria that when he, as the pastor of the universal church sitting in the chair of St. Peter, symbolically or real, and doing it according to have his own freewill, not being forced to do it, and he intends to define doctrine that is binding upon all the people of God, that the Holy Spirit of God protects him from teaching error, under those circumstances. It may not be timely, beautifully written, eloquent, or even well said. It just means, infallibility simply means that we can trust what the Pope says to be free of error or heresy.
Trent Horn: When it’s proposed under these limited circumstances on faith and morals, [inaudible 00:00:23:45], cathedra. And that helps clear up, I think, many objections people have to this doctrine, which we’ll get to here in a second. But first, Steve, what’s some of the biblical and historical evidence for the idea that the Pope has this special charism?
Steve Ray: Well, one of them is the fact that that Jesus gave them the authority to bind and to loose. What that means is that you have the right to make laws and to judge them and that what Peter does with that authority, it’s going to be ratified in heaven. Now, that is a powerful authority. Just just believe that. Just say, okay, Trent, whatever you’d bind, God’s going to ratify it in heaven. Well, to me immediately what that means is that from that point on, God is going to superintend what Peter says because he’s now got his name attached to it. In other words, I can’t… Peter’s always just blurting things out. He does that throughout the New Testament. Sometimes Jesus has to correct him. But when Jesus says that what you bind on Earth, I’ll bind in heaven, what you loose on Earth, I’ll loosen heaven.
Steve Ray: It means that God is going to have to superintend his mouth because he’s now given his reputation to this. So there right there shows that there’s something happening that shows that the Holy Spirit is going to protect what Peter says and does under certain circumstances. There’s another interesting passage in 1 Timothy 3:15 where Paul is writing to Timothy and saying, this is how you should conduct yourself in the church. And he says that you conduct yourself in the household of God this way, and the household of God is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth. In other words, it’s the church, with obviously the head of the church because the church doesn’t come without the authority structure within it. The church and the authority structure within it is recognized by Paul and the early church as the pillar and support of the truth.
Steve Ray: It’s not the Bible. The Bible is not the pillar and support of the truth. It is the church of the living God. Therefore, that means that the church has authority. It has the certain infallibility so that we can trust it. Otherwise, how can we trust it? Because men are way too infallible, way too weak, so how can we trust it if it’s not that God is somehow superintending what the church teaches? I think that’s a very important thing. Now, one quick counterargument, as I used to say is, well, how can a fallible, sinful human being give us an infallible teaching? How can a sinful, weak person give us a infallible teaching?
Steve Ray: Well, then I often said, then I would come back and say, well, wait a minute. Who wrote the gospel of Matthew and Mark and Luke and John? These were fallible, sinful men, and yet the Holy Spirit conducted them in such a way, superintended them in such a way that their words, their writings are not just infallible, but they are the inspired word of God. What’s more difficult to get a sinful person to write the inspired word of God or simply to give an infallible interpretation of it? Well, if the Holy Spirit can you sinful people like Peter and Paul and others to write inspired scripture, then it’s certainly much easier that he can superintend people that are just going to give an infallible interpretation of it.
Trent Horn: I think that’s important because for many Protestants they’ll say, well, I believe in the Bible because only the Bible’s infallible for me to get infallible truth from. But they forget the Bible has a divine and a human source.
Steve Ray: Exactly.
Trent Horn: And so humans can be infallible. At least in some circumstances, God can protect the chief pastor of the church in the same way. Let’s talk then a little bit about some of the other objections that Protestants will make to the idea of PayPal and fallibility. Usually they’ll cite specific historical episodes. Actually, the earliest one they probably would cite would be the actions of Peter that Paul describes in his letter to the Galatians. It says that Paul opposed Peter to his face and really called him out. And they’ll say, well, how could Peter have been infallible when he made this tremendous goof that Paul has to call him out for?
Steve Ray: Actually, Paul’s comments prove the Catholic position of infallibility because what is happening here is that Peter… and Tertullian says us in a great way. I don’t have time to quote the whole thing, but basically the fact is this, that when Peter, it’s a historical situation. I hesitate to go into it all because it would take up too much time to get the context of it, but what Peter was doing was causing all of the people to follow him into error. Even Barnabas who was Paul’s right hand man, which shows the authority that Peter had in the early church, that if Peter did something, everyone followed him even in contradiction to Paul. Even Paul’s right hand man, Barnabas leaves Paul and follows the the actions of Peter, which shows right there the importance of what Peter did. Now, is Peter teaching heresy? Does Paul accused Peter of teaching wrongly? No, he’s accusing Peter of not living up to his infallible teaching. Peter had said that Jews and Gentiles in Christ are equal. You don’t need to be circumcised and the Jews and the Gentiles are one in Christ.
Steve Ray: Therefore you should treat them equally. But when some Jews came up to Antioch, down to Antioch, I should say. When they came down there, they were teaching wrongly that the Gentiles were not the same. The uncircumcised could not be Christians until they were circumcised first. And so some of the Jewish believers in Jesus were pulling away then from the Gentiles. Peter had taught, infallably, that Jew and Gentile are equal in Christ. But his conduct was belying what he taught, and he was pulling away from the Gentiles and being a hypocrite.
Steve Ray: It wasn’t that Peter was teaching it wrong. He had taught infallibly, but he was being hypocritical in the conduct of his own teaching. And so Paul called him on being a hypocrite, and very well so. Catherine of Sienna one time wrote to the Pope and said, you, oh, sweet Christ in the sense as being in his office, but you are wrong in what you are doing. Although you’re right in what you teach.
Speaker 1: If you liked today’s episode, become a premium subscriber at our Patreon page and get access to member only content. For more information, visit trenthornpodcast.com.