Peter, the Papacy & Jimmy

A Response to Jimmy Swaggert Ministries, Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Pope Jimmy I

If you had not been forced by your own community to branch out on your own, you would probably have done so eventually, anyway. Such a direction can be seen in your approach to Catholicism. You make the dogmatic statement that the Catholic faith is not Christian and that it is not the Church of Christ (pp. 18-19). Where do you get your certainty, obviously not from the Word of God or history? You get it from yourself, and yourself alone. If there is any spirit helping you in this matter, I assure you that it is not the Holy Spirit. Is it frightening to have all the checks removed, to be one's own church? You are now only accountable to God and to your followers. The latter might be deceived, but nothing can be hidden from God. I pray that when the fire of God's love judges me, that there might be some polished gold beneath, and not simply ashes. I believe my Pope is specially protected by the Holy Spirit, what about your papal status?

Christ the Firm Foundation

You quote the text Matthew 16:18-19 regarding Christ calling Peter the rock of his Church without any consideration for the continuing belief of the Church on this point (pp. 20-21). Would God allow his Church to err on such a basic reality for a couple thousand years? No. The fact that this rock in Greek may mean "chip" or really better, "little stone" says nothing about how it might have been translated from the original Aramaic which Jesus normally spoke. In addition, the Rock of the Catholic Church, despite your deception, has always been Jesus Christ. Remember, Peter as vicar is only seen as a steward of Christ's people until he returns again. Indeed, "little stone" would be a welcome title for the successors of Peter who also call themselves, "the Servant of the Servants of God". It is out of this whole appreciation, grandiose in a way quite different than as you might imagine, that we can speak of the Bishop of Rome being given special charge of the "Keys to the Kingdom". The Church interprets this role of making the Kingdom accessible to others as a continuing role of the Church, and not just to Peter personally. The judgment of time shows that the Church has been right all along.

Cheap Shot Against the Papacy

The Popes of the Church assume an office of leadership for a short while and then they go to God, passing on the obligation to another. They amass no personal fortune in their slavery on the behalf of the Church and mankind. Can you say the same? Christians are not immune to the contest between between Mammon and Christ in their lives. Nevertheless, you mock the popularity of the current Pope and the respect he receives from the Catholic faithful (p. 24).

Papal Authority - Your Exaggeration

When you say that the apostle Peter never claimed the power to save or damn others, you infer that the Pope attempts to take to himself such authority (p. 24). The Pope cannot control our consciences or mandate as if his fellows were robots to blindly follow Jesus. He leads, but it remains up to each of us whether we will accept or reject Jesus Christ. When the Pope canonizes a man or woman as a saint, this is simply a recognition that such a person is with God and that their life stands for us as a witness of what it means to be a Christian and that their new life is one in which they continue to love us and pray with us. The Holy Father shepherds the flock of Christ and aids them in finding salvation in Christ. The Pope does not say who is damned. Your biblical quotes, out of context, and interpreted more from your personal tastes than from a critical mastery of the texts, are too jumbled to review in their entirety.

Married and Single Priests

Be careful not to become like those who rejected or subverted Christ's message of old. Because they were blind, and yet claimed to see, their sin remained. It is at this point that you tell us that because Peter had a wife he could not possibly be a Pope (p. 26). There is no big deal about Peter being married, and no secret to Catholics, either. The Church even has art depicting him and his wife! Who is your source for this lopsided stuff? I can tell you right off, he is no Catholic. Popes were both married and unmarried in the early Church. Priests had this option all the way up through the first thousand years of the Church's history. They were allowed to get married. Indeed, there were canonical regulations regarding the maintenance of the families of priests and bishops. This is nothing novel! So what? The rule requiring celibacy (due to problems of scandal, the need for more devoted clergy, etc.) are simply a matter of discipline -- not doctrine! It could be changed tomorrow! As for Eastern Rite Catholics, they have always had married priests!

Peter Followed Christ to the Cross

There is nothing helpful or of major value in your document. Even the facts are faulty. You state without reservation that there is no biblical, literary, or historical finding that Peter ever journeyed to Rome (p. 27). Of course, you have yet to cite one ancient historical document besides the Scriptures. The testimony is beyond a doubt that Peter went to Rome and was ultimately crucified upon an inverted cross. Recent excavation has uncovered what looks to be his tomb. Paul of course would be beheaded by the empire. I have great difficulty that a so-called learned man of God could be so in error.

Unbroken Line of Popes

You interpret the text regarding the power of "losing and binding" in such a strict way that you think it applies to demonic powers and not to sin; with whom do you think our sins put us in league? You continue to misrepresent the Church regarding the forgiveness that comes only through Christ, as if we do not believe this as doctrine. As for the unbroken reign of the Popes, during the first three hundred years there are lists extent and in places of minor uncertainty regarding particular figures, we have the testimony of second, third, and fourth century authorities. The only reason for some minor irregularities in the names is because an underground, persecuted Church is more concerned about its survival than its paperwork. However, what is surprising is the long list of names, even from the first centuries, of which we are quite certain. Nor as you infer, can the Pope make any new doctrines or change commandments -- this includes the one regarding adultery (in thought, word and deed). As for his right to speak, we can all speak for God when we echo what he has revealed to us. Also, millions of people will not be lost over any such foolishness that kissing the Pope's ring could possibly save us. The Church has never taught such a silly thing (p. 30)! Who feeds you this garbage about us? You go on to ask if Peter was the first Pope, who was the second one? It is a challenge paid for by the lists of the early martyred Popes. Now, instead of you giving thanks for men of such courage and faith, you deride them and make them invisible. Linus, Cletus, and Clement would follow Peter. Indeed, a letter is extent from Clement, written about the year 95 AD in which he attempted to restore peace to a community torn by unrest in regard to the presbyteral authority. Could it be similar to the unrest you sow? Irenaeus would identify him as the Bishop of Rome and therefore, the Pope. However, this is not taken to mean that other, helper bishops, like our auxiliaries today, did not exist. Indeed, at one point there is mention of seven bishops there. You would even take away the glorious death of Peter on an inverted cross in 64 AD at the command of Nero, upon which he would follow in the footsteps of the Master. Although all salvation truth finds its source and cannot be contradicted in the Scriptures, the history and therefore the tradition of the Church continued afterwards. It is interesting that you would be willing to accept the history (perhaps) of your faith in your lifetime, but little else before since it is not black and white in the bible.

Development of Doctrine

Despite what your Dr. Lorraine Boettner says about the title "Pope" arising only in 607 AD, the fact is that the prestige and influence of the see of Peter and Paul has always set it apart from the others. Whether or not the Bishop of Rome was called the Pope or not matters little, either then or now. It is the reality and not the title that is important. As for early Popes appreciating the extent of their power, this awareness, as with our understanding of all doctrine, matures in human history. John Cardinal Newman would explain this in his treatise on the development of Christian doctrine, something every educated Christian minister has read. Of course, this does not mean the distortion or repudiation of divine truths. Revelation is given in the Word of God, in time it grows and blossoms.