Chrysostom and the Papacy: A Reassessment of Patristic Misappropriation

J. Neil Daniels

Nota Bene: This essay was prompted by a lengthy exchange I had last night (5/24/25) with a Roman Catholic interlocutor in the comment section of a public debate between Allen S. Nelson IV and Fr. Stephen Hart, titled "Is the Roman Catholic Church a Gospel-Denying Church?," hosted by Providence Baptist Church and available at https://www.youtube.com/live/-dgcJNWJH4E?feature=shared. Over the course of several hours, we engaged in an in-depth and respectful dialogue regarding the proper interpretation of John Chrysostom’s statements about Peter and whether they support the Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy. What follows is a summary theological and historical analysis of that subject, demonstrating that Catholic appeals to Chrysostom are not only misread but fundamentally anachronistic.

Introduction

Among the Church Fathers, few are as widely quoted as John Chrysostom, the golden-mouthed preacher of Antioch and Constantinople. Catholic apologists frequently invoke his writings to bolster claims of Petrine primacy and papal supremacy, presenting him as a patristic ally of Roman ecclesiology. However, a careful examination of Chrysostom’s corpus reveals a more nuanced and ecclesially balanced portrayal of Peter, one that exalts the apostle’s virtues and prominence, but without affirming the jurisdictional claims later advanced by the Roman Church. This essay contends that Catholic appeals to Chrysostom in support of the papacy are hermeneutically flawed, historically anachronistic, and theologically overreaching.

Chrysostom’s Exaltation of Peter in Context

There is no denying that Chrysostom holds Peter in high regard. In numerous homilies, he praises Peter’s boldness, zeal, and leadership. He refers to Peter as “the mouth of the apostles,” “the leader of the choir,” and even “the rock” upon which the Church is built. In Homily 88 on John, Chrysostom says that Christ entrusted Peter with “the whole world” and that He commanded him to “feed my sheep,” language which, taken in isolation, might suggest a form of primacy.

However, Chrysostom’s rhetorical style must be understood in its homiletic and pastoral context. His encomiums are not legal affirmations of office but spiritual exhortations intended to edify the faithful. He routinely lavishes praise on biblical figures without implying a structural hierarchy. Paul is called “the teacher of the world,” “the trumpet of heaven,” and “the pillar of the Church,” and yet no Catholic would claim that such language implies Pauline supremacy over the apostles. Likewise, the prominence of Peter in Chrysostom’s oratory does not establish the papacy, but reflects the high esteem in which the early Church held all of the apostles as foundational figures.

The Rebuke at Antioch: A Test Case for Equality

Perhaps the most revealing moment in Chrysostom’s commentary on ecclesial authority comes in Homily 1 on Galatians, where he reflects on Paul’s public rebuke of Peter in Antioch (Gal 2:11–14). Rather than downplaying the event or shielding Peter’s authority, Chrysostom underscores Paul’s courage and equality. He writes that Paul rebuked Peter “as an equal,” and goes so far as to say that this action demonstrates the apostolic office was not monarchical: “Observe how Paul does not exalt himself, but asserts equality, and claims no superiority.”

Catholic interpreters often attempt to circumvent this plain reading by appealing to the courage it took to rebuke someone “with primacy,” likening it to Nathan confronting David. Yet Chrysostom’s own words make this interpretation untenable. The point is not that Paul was subordinate yet courageous, but that Paul was equal in honor and authority, able to correct Peter publicly and doctrinally, without violating the Church’s order. That is not an argument for papal supremacy; in fact, it is an argument against it.

The Keys and the Rock: Exegetical Multiplicity

Another pillar of the Catholic argument from Chrysostom involves Matthew 16:18–19, where Christ declares Peter to be the rock and gives him the keys of the kingdom. Chrysostom indeed calls Peter “the rock” in Homily 54 on Matthew, but he does not limit that title to Peter alone. In other sermons, he identifies the rock as Christ, and elsewhere as Peter’s confession of faith. This exegetical multiplicity was typical among the Fathers and should not be read as contradiction, but as layered theological reflection.

To single out Chrysostom’s identification of Peter as the rock, while ignoring his other identifications, is a hermeneutical sleight of hand. In fact, in Homily 82 on Matthew, Chrysostom explicitly states that the authority to bind and loose sins was not given to Peter alone but extended to all the apostles. This view aligns with the broader patristic consensus of primus inter pares—a first among equals—not a sovereign among subordinates.

Theological Method and Doctrinal Development

The tendency to conscript Chrysostom into a post-Tridentine or Vatican I conception of the papacy reflects a methodological failure. Doctrinal development must exhibit continuity, not merely expansion. The claim that Vatican I simply defined what had always been believed about Peter’s universal jurisdiction finds no support in Chrysostom. He never describes Peter as a pope, nor does he assign to him a monarchic role over the universal Church. Instead, Chrysostom’s ecclesiology emphasizes collegiality, mutual correction, conciliar authority, and the supremacy of Christ as the true Head of the Church.

The Nicene definition of Christ’s deity in AD 325 was a development grounded in universal and consistent apostolic testimony. The definition of papal infallibility in 1870, by contrast, finds no such antecedent in Chrysostom or any early Father. Rather than organic development, such is theological retrofitting.

Sola Scriptura and the Authority of the Word

Some Catholic responses to Protestant retrieval of Chrysostom claim that we impose Reformation categories onto the Fathers, particularly in our appeal to sola Scriptura. But this objection misrepresents both the Reformers and the patristic witness. When Chrysostom exhorts believers to “cleave to the Scriptures” because “they are a secure anchor,” he is not setting Scripture against tradition, but affirming its normative authority in the life of the Church. That is not anachronism; it is fidelity to the textual principle that guided the Fathers themselves. The Protestant Reformers did not invent the supremacy of Scripture, they reclaimed it.

Conclusion

John Chrysostom is not an ally of Roman Catholicism’s papal theology. His portrayal of Peter is noble and honoring, but it never crosses the line into jurisdictional supremacy or universal governance. He affirms the unity of the apostles, the parity of their authority, and the primacy of Christ as the true rock and head of the Church. Catholic apologists who marshal Chrysostom in support of the papacy are not reading him faithfully; they are retrofitting him to conform to later theological constructs. A careful and contextual reading of Chrysostom places him firmly within the early Church’s vision of apostolic collegiality, not papal monarchy.

For Further Study

Primary Sources

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on Galatians. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 13, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Gospel of John. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 14, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Chrysostom, John. Homilies on the Gospel of Matthew. In Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 10, edited by Philip Schaff. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

Secondary Sources

Dunn, Geoffrey D. “Roman Primacy in the Correspondence between Innocent I and John Chrysostom.” In Giovanni Crisostomo: Oriente e Occidente tra IV e V secolo, XXXIII Incontro di studiosi dell’antichità cristiana, Roma, 6–8 maggio 2004, 687–698. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 93/2. Rome: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2005.

Geisler, Norman L., and Ralph E. MacKenzie. Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1995.

This work offers a wide-ranging critique of Catholic doctrine, with a dedicated section addressing the biblical and historical problems with the papacy, infallibility, and apostolic succession.

Svendsen, Eric D. Evangelical Answers: A Critique of Roman Catholic Apologetics. New York: Reformation Press, 1999.

A systematic and detailed rebuttal of Catholic apologetic arguments, including a thorough treatment of Matthew 16, apostolic authority, and Petrine primacy.

White, James R. The Roman Catholic Controversy: Catholics and Protestants—Do the Differences Still Matter? Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1996.

White critiques the claims of the papacy with careful exegesis and patristic engagement, arguing that the early Church never recognized a supreme bishop in Rome as the universal head of the Church.

Webster, William. The Church of Rome at the Bar of History. Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth, 1995.

Webster traces the development of the papacy and subjects its claims to the test of historical theology, showing its divergence from early Christian practice and belief.

Webster, William, and David T. King, eds. Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith. 3 vols. Battle Ground, WA: Christian Resources, 2001.

Though focused on sola Scriptura, these volumes offer extensive patristic citations and critiques of Catholic authority structures, including the Roman bishop's alleged supremacy.

Renihan, Samuel. To the Judicious and Impartial Reader: A Contextual-Historical Exposition of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith. Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2021.

While not exclusively a critique of the papacy, Renihan addresses the Reformed and Baptist rejection of ecclesiastical hierarchy rooted in Roman claims, offering a confessional alternative grounded in Scripture and early Reformation principles.

Allison, Gregg R., and Chris Castaldo. The Unfinished Reformation: What Unites and Divides Catholics and Protestants after 500 Years. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

An accessible and balanced treatment of ongoing theological differences, including the Catholic claims regarding papal authority and Protestant responses grounded in Scripture and historical theology.

De Chirico, Leonardo. A Christian’s Pocket Guide to the Papacy: Its Origin and Role in the 21st Century. Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2015.

A concise yet comprehensive examination of the papacy's biblical, historical, and theological dimensions. De Chirico critiques the development of papal authority and its implications for contemporary ecumenical dialogue.

De Chirico, Leonardo. Evangelical Theological Perspectives on Post-Vatican II Roman Catholicism. Bern: Peter Lang, 2003.

This academic work, based on De Chirico's doctoral dissertation, analyzes the theological shifts in Roman Catholicism following the Second Vatican Council, assessing their impact on evangelical-Catholic relations.

De Chirico, Leonardo. “There Has Been Little Evangelical Work to Try to Understand Roman Catholicism Since Vatican II.” Evangelical Focus, November 13, 2020. https://evangelicalfocus.com/culture/13096/there-has-been-little-evangelical-work-to-try-to-understand-roman-catholicism-since-vatican-ii.

An article highlighting the need for renewed evangelical engagement with Roman Catholic theology in the post-Vatican II context, emphasizing areas of doctrinal divergence.