The principal scriptural authority for the papacy re- lied upon by the Roman Catholic Church i- Matt. xvi. 18, 19. Without entering into a discussion of the mean- ing of this famous passage, we may here quote from Al>- bott's Commentary on the New Testament a statement of the Roman Catholic interpretation, and the grounds on which that view is rejected by all Protestants:
" The ordinary Roman Catholic view of this pt that Christ declared his purpose to found a great • astical organization: that this organization was to be built upon Peter and his successors as its true founda- tion : th.i' they wire to represent to all time the author- ity of <; oil u i the earth, being clothed, by virtue of their
office, with a continuous inspiration, and authorized by the Word, and lilted by ttic indwelling Spirit of God, to
guide, direct, illumine, and command the disciples of Christ, with the same force and effect as Christ himself (see Phillips, Kirchenrecht, i. 146). See art. l'i mi:. This view is untenable for the following reasons: 1. Christ does not. a- we have seen, refer to a definite ecclesiastical organization by the word church, and would not he so understood by Ids disciples. 2. Peter was not by nature rock-like; he was. on the contrary, characteristically im- pulsive and unstable. There must be, therefore, some other significance in the words 'Thou ait a rock' which the Roman Catholic interpretation loses. '■'<. Neither he
nor the other disciples uinler-t 1 that Christ invested
him with any such authority and position, lie did not occupy any such place in the Chinch while he lived. In the first council at Jerusalem (Acts xv, 7 in he was sim- ply an adviser, the office of chief or president being ap- parently held by .lames ; Paul « itllStOOd Peter to Ids face, as no disciple ever withstood Christ, or would have with- stood his acknowledged representative (Gal. ii, 11 14); and throughout the N.T.the apostles are all treated as co-equals (Matt, xviii, 1 ; six, 2S; xxiii.s; John xv,l-5; Rev. xxi, 14). 4. There is neither here nor anywhere else in the N.T. any him of a successor to Peter, or of any au- thority in him to appoint a successor, or of any sucii au- thority vested in any of the apostles, or exercised, or as- sumed to be exercised, by any of them. r>. The N. T. throughout, and the O. T. in all its prophecies, recognises Christ as the i hief corner-stone, the foundation on which the kingdom ofGod can alone be built, ti. Mark and I. like omit from their account this utterance of Christ; if it really designated Peter a- the foundation of the visible .1 was thn- essential and not incidental to the right understanding of the whole incident, it would not be omitted from their accounts." See Rook.
Few Christian governments have ever been willing to recognise to their full extent the rights claimed by and for the Roman pope-. I'lie placet (q.v.) was intro- duced in the Middle Ago by most of the stales, and without it no papal hull could In' promulgated; and the popes \''\ni>\ it necessary to consent to the conclusion of special concordats {q.v.) or conventions, which, in
POPE
407
POPE
the way of compromise, regulated the papal rights which a state government bound itself to recognise.
Many popes in the Middle Ages also claimed the power of deposing lungs, of absolving the subjects of excommunicated princes from their oath of allegiance, and, in general, an unlimited power over temporal as well as spiritual affairs. That a number of popes as- sumed this right is a fact admitted on all sides; but it is quite common among Roman Catholics to deny that this is a right inherent in the papal dignity, and also that it was ever claimed by the popes as a right be- longing to them in virtue of their office. A few sam- ples of pontifical arrogance may suffice for illustration here :