Actually, yes. It requires an extensive domino effect list of Scripture that must be denied or reinterpreted to piece by piece build a case to deny the Church's authority.
Countdown until someone claims guidence from their pet snake is all they need, not any revision of Scripture . . ."
One crosseyed hippie, two crosseyed hippies, three crosseyed hippies, . . .
>Actually, yes. It requires an extensive domino effect list of Scripture that must be denied or reinterpreted to piece by piece build a case to deny the Church’s authority. <
Actually it is Rome that extrapolates a Perpetuated Petrine papacy and assured infallibility out of text that do not teach that. Writings were established as Scripture and Truth was preserved without an infallible magisterium before there ever was a church in Rome, let alone what is referred to today as Roman. And among other things, the power to bind and loose was originally not given to the apostles only, while Rome herself allows that the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 upon which Christ built his Church was the rock of the faith confessed by St Peter, as the CFs differ on this.
In reality, while RCAs attempt to appeal Scripture as if it were the basis for doctrine, Scriptural substantiation is not the basis for RCs assurance of Rome being the one true and infallible church, else they would be evangelicals, but it is because they believe Rome is infallible.
But in response to those who invoke Scripture, there are arguments such as by Steve Hays (http://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2008/06/04/some-questions-for-pete-enns/#comment-51994) on Matthew 16:18:
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Lets jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to Peter.
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has exclusive reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine office.
d) This office is perpetual
e) Peter resided in Rome
f) Peter was the bishop of Rome
g) Peter was the first bishop of Rome
h) There was only one bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop anywhere else.
j) Peter ordained a successor
k) This ceremony transferred his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained unbroken up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps:
(a) V18 may not even refer to Peter. We can see that Petros is not the petra on which Jesus will build his church
In accord with 7:24, which Matthew quotes here, the petra consists of Jesus teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. This rock no longer poses the problem that this is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally on you. Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., this rock echoes these my words.
Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church Matthews Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his law (cf. 5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose stone Peter.
Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the churchs foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42, R. Gundry, Matthew (Eerdmans 1994), 334.
(b) Is falsified by the power-sharing arrangement in Mt 18:17-18 & Jn 20:23.
(c) The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter.
(d) In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the Church, and not to a church office.
(e) There is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (cf. 1 Pet 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (cf. 1 Cor 1:12; 9:5).
(f) This commits a category mistake. An Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, its an extraordinary rather than ordinary office.
(g) The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (cf. Acts 18:2; Rom 16:3). It wasnt founded by Peter. Rather, it consisted of a number of house-churches (e.g. Rom 16; Hebrews) of Jewish or Gentile membershipor mixed company.
(h) NT polity was plural rather than monarchal. The Catholic claim is predicated on a strategic shift from a plurality of bishops (pastors/elders) presiding over a single (local) churchwhich was the NT modelto a single bishop presiding over a plurality of churches. And even after you go from (i) oligarchic to (ii) monarchal prelacy, you must then continue from monarchal prelacy to (iii) Roman primacy, from Roman primacy to (iv) papal primacy, and from papal primacy to (v) papal infallibility. So step (h) really breaks down into separate stepsnone of which enjoys the slightest exegetical support.
(j) Peter also presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Pet 1:1). And according to tradition, Antioch was also a Petrine See (Apostolic Constitutions 7:46.).
(j)-(k) This suffers from at least three objections:
i) These assumptions are devoid of exegetical support. There is no internal warrant for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors.
ii) Even if he had, there is no exegetical evidence that the imposition of hands is identical with Holy Orders.
iii) Even if we went along with that identification, Popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor (or priest, if you prefer), not a Pope.
(l) This cannot be verified. What is more, events like the Great Schism falsify it in practice, if not in principle.
These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. To my knowledge, I havent said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.
But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Mt 16:18 to the papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Mt 16:18. Except for (v), all the rest depend on tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.
The prerogatives ascribed to Peter in 16:19 (binding and loosing are likewise conferred on the Apostles generally in 18:18. The image of the keys (v19a) is used for Peter only, but this is a figure of speechwhile the power signified by the keys was already unpacked by the binding and loosing language, so that no distinctively Petrine prerogative remains in the original promise. In other words, the keys do not refer to a separate prerogative that is distinctive to Peter. That confuses the metaphor with its literal referent.