Jesus gave "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" to one man only - Peter (Matt 16). Peter therefore was given SUPERNATURAL authority over what the Church teaches as doctinal truth. This supernatural authority includes supernatural - ie, INFALLIBLE - guidance regarding doctrinal truth. Hence, the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope (Peter's successor) is INFALLIBLE - ie, supernaturally protected from teaching doctrinal error - as regards faith and morals.
The obvious problem with singling out Peter as the one with ultimate authority in the Church (having the “keys” and being the “rock”) is the stubborn witness of the entire New Testament! If we assume that the papacy was established in Peter we would expect to find plenty of helpful evidence for it in Scripture, but we don’t. This highlights why Roman Catholic dogma rejects using Scripture
alone to establish authority.
Let’s not forget that the overarching context for “the keys of the kingdom” in Matthew 16:19 is the identity of Christ (vs. 13-20). He had just asked His disciples: “But who do you say that I am?” We have to ignore the witness and balanced fullness of New Testament teaching to build a case that even remotely suggests Peter was the rock on which the Church was to be built and to whom special authority was given.
Later in Matthew 18 the right to bind and loosen is given to
all believers who are in agreement under Christ’s headship, not just Peter: “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven” (v. 18).
Also, in Peter’s own letters (and by the way, in 1st Peter 5:1 he calls himself a “fellow elder”, very different to a powerful pope-like leader) he never hinted that he was
the rock upon which the church was being built. In fact, writing to other believers, he confirmed that true believers are living stones who are built upon Christ Who is the cornerstone: “And
coming to Him as to a living stone which has been rejected by men, but is choice and precious in the sight of God, you also, as living stones, are being built up as a spiritual house for a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (see 1st Peter 2:4-8).
True believers are being built together
on Christ, not on a mere man (consider Acts 10:26). This is further confirmed in Ephesians 2:20-22: “...having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” Christ alone is the Church's
only sure foundation.
When thinking about Peter in general and given the lack of evidence, it’s fair to ask if Peter was ever in the ancient city of Rome. There is no
strong evidence that he lived and died there. Paul wrote his letter to the Roman believers in the mid-to late 50s and doesn't mention Peter even once. He refers to many other people (see Romans 16), but not Peter, a striking oversight when writing to the Christians in Rome who had been there “for many years” (see Romans 15:23).
Wasn’t Peter supposed to have been reigning in pope-like authority in Rome from the 40s to the 60s? Peter had been entrusted with bringing the Gospel message to the Jews. Why would he have travelled so far west to Rome? (Consider Galatians 2:7.)
Ultimately the only worthwhile argument Roman Catholic apologists have is confined to 1st Peter 5:13, where it’s claimed that “Babylon” proves conclusively that Peter was writing from Rome.
__
In discussions about any unique Roman Catholic belief the problem is
always one of authority. Do we need to look beyond the witness of Scripture to define the Papacy? Yes, we most certainly do. If we allow the fullness of Scripture to define Christian living and Church authority we discover a completeness that makes unique Roman Catholic dogma superfluous.
For more thoughts on Roman Catholic Tradition see
HERE.
