The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16

The doctrine of papal infallibility is very much misunderstood. It does not mean that a given pope never makes a mistake, never sins, or never loses his car keys; it means that when laying out a particular article of faith, a doctrine that Catholics are told to believe in, he is speaking with God’s authority on the given matter.

If I was not in a hurry this morning, I would look it up, but IIRC, papal infallibility has been invoked only once or twice within the last 100 years.

Excellent explanation. I should have read yours before posting my attempt at an answer.

Memo to self: Interesting how the premise of whether Christ actually appointed Peter as the first Pope got hijack over to whether popes, in general, are infallible. Christ didn’t call Peter “The Rock.” Christ called him Cephas, a “little stone.” The “ROCK” upon which Christ said He would build his Church was the REPLY Peter gave to Christ’s question, “Whom do YOU say that I am?” And Peter replied, “I say that you are The Christ; the Son of The Living God.” And Self, don’t buy any “cut and pasted” “PROOF” scriptures that purport to “prove” that Peter was the first Pope. Scripture warns us to call no man on Earth “Father.”
Remember that, Self! Don’t you forget it!

"Unlike how Protestant teaching has been constantly changing from the beginning....."

NO... some Protestant churches have not been changing as you said.

Stated below is the doctrine that my "Protestant" church teaches. It is the same as it has taught since the reformation, when the Protestant church was separated from the Catholic church. And I challenge you to find one word of it that is not supported by God's word in the Holy Bible!

1. I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
3. Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary:
4. Suffered under Pontius Pilate; was crucified, dead and buried: He descended into hell:
5. The third day he rose again from the dead:
6. He ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
7. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead:
8. I believe in the Holy Ghost:
9. I believe in the holy catholic church: the communion of saints:
10. The forgiveness of sins:
1l. The resurrection of the body:
12. And the life everlasting. Amen.

Identify your Protestant denomination and let us see if it teaches today the same as the original reformers. Of course then we would have to ask, which reformer: Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, etc.? The teaching of Protestantism, as a movement, has been anything but stable.

Your translation of Cephas is purely invented. Cephas (Or Kepa) is Aramaic for Petra.

Petros (as a common noun) appears nowhere in the Koine (biblical) dialect of Greek prior to Christ, only in Attic Greek revival.

Word endings in Greek do not delineate substantive changes in what is being described. Petra, petrai, petrais, petran, and petras all describe the same substance, but are all feminine. Petros (or Petrws) is merely the masculinization. Rocks don’t typically have masculine or feminine qualities, but when Greek words have both masculine and feminine versions, the substance isn’t different when the endings are different, only the masculine and feminine characteristics.

(NOTE: in some post-Christian Attic-Greek revival poetry, [Imagine a modern poet using King James English], Petra was used for a mother lode, and Petros for the stone hewn from the mother lode. Given the origin from Cephas, this could not have been Jesus’ intent.)

Acts 15:8 And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. 9 He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts.

Acts 11:17 Forasmuch then as God gave them the like gift as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ; what was I, that I could withstand God?

For the record, that’s the precise definition of papal infallibility from Vatican I.

Now that you know that definition, any further attempts to confuse infallibility with impeccability or clairvoyance shall be known to be deceit.

"when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said...But we believe...Then all the multitude kept silence"

What blatant wresting of Scripture to compel it to submit to Rome! What the passage actually says is that they kept silence at Barnabas and Paul, and that James provided the definitive sentence:

And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me. (Acts 15:12,13) [DRB]

Moreover, Mat. 16:18 did not even enjoy unanimous consent of the father's

it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than juridical. - Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 399.

And thus even the CCC provides an alternative interpretation:

“On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.

The R.C. exaltation of Peter is foundationally based upon Mt. 16:13-19, wherein there is a play on the word "rock" by the Lord, in which the immovable "Rock" upon which Christ would build His church is the confession that Christ was the Son of God, and thus by implication it is Christ himself. The verse at issue, v.18, cannot be divorced from that which preceded it, in which the identity of Jesus Christ is the main subject. In the next verse (17) that is what Jesus refers to in telling blessed Peter that “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” and in v. 18 that truth is what the “this rock” refers to, with a distinction being made between the person of Peter and this rock. This is the only interpretation that is confirmed, as it must be, in the rest of the New Testament. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

Moreover all the texts Staples provides simply attest to initial Peter being the street-level leader among brethren, and who exercised a general pastoral role, but which does not testify to the Roman papacy, that of Peter being the first of a succession of exalted Roman popes which the church looked as its supreme infallible head, with unlimited, incalculable (Dollinger), holding upon this earth the place of God Almighty, which power he can exercise unhindered.

Married Peter fades from view after Acts 15, and Paul himself called all the Ephesian pastors to conference, as well as doing many other things that RCs would invoke as testifying to the papacy if said of Peter.

Nowhere in any of the epistle are the churches even exhorted to pray specially for Peter (though they certainly did as for other leaders, and as needed) as the supreme head. And in Gal. 2:1ff Peter is mentioned as the second among 3 pillars of the church, “who seemed to be somewhat,” and who provided public affirmation of of Paul, but who publicly reproved Peter for his duplicity, consistent with Paul's statement that “God accepteth no man's person.”

In addition, the power of binding and loosing was also given to all the disciples, (Mt. 18:15-19) and exercised contrary to Rome's presumption.(1Cor. 5; James 5) And who was the first to use the keys to the kingdom of God, the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into it. (Col. 1:13)

Not once in the Lord's own letters to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2 and 3 is the pope mentioned, not as a solution to their needs nor as fidelity to as a commendation, which at least is evidence that Rome did change the Bible to support here, but which lack of testimony is why Rome employed the use forgeries to support her pretensions.

Nowhere did Peter refer to himself as anything more than “a servant,” “an apostle,” “an elder,” (1Pt. 1:1; 5:1; 2Pt. 1) and was married, (Mt. 8:14; 1Cor. 9:4) and evidently poor, (Acts 3:6) living as a guest a tanner's house (Acts 10:6: a smelly profession, thus it was by the sea) who would not let even an unsaved men bow down to him. (Acts 10:25,26) And while not diminishing his non-assertive, informal leadership among brethren, and initial primary use in Acts, yet it was James who provided the definitive and detailed decree at the 1^st ecumenical council. (Acts 15:13-21)

Modern research, including by Catholics, testifies against the Roman version of history, in which Peter is set forth as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads to whom all the church looked to from the beginning.

Among Catholic and other scholars,

Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether

the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

Thus, while Peter was the initial street-level leader of the 11, and can be seen exercising a general pastoral role, yet he was not looked to by the churches as the the supreme infallible head, nor is there any evidence for a successor of any apostle after Judas (by a for or preparation for one), though James was martyred, (Acts 12:1,2) and which was to maintain the original number of the 12, (Rv. 21:14) which Rome has not, and was by the non-political OT Scriptural method of casting lots (Prov. 16:33) used by Peter and the 11, but instead her elections have often involved political machinations, resulting in, among other things, wicked men being elected, and conveying that God is a respecter of persons in favoring Italians. Moreover, a qualification for an apostle seem to require a literal personal discipleship by the Lord Himself. (Acts 1:21-22; 1Cor. 9:1; Gal. 1:11,12,17)

There are not widely varying interpretations among Protestants.

The *wide* variation is far more between Catholicism and non-Catholic denominations.

The Catholic positions by taking partial verses, verses out of context, interpreting passages inconsistently (literal, figurative, back to literal all within the same sentence or discourse), etc.

Besides your wresting of Scripture already shown, and the fact that the perpetuation of this purported supreme infallible office is not shown or promised in Scripture, there is the additional testimony of which i previously provided only small part.

• The Catholic historian Paul Johnson (author of over 40 books and a conservative popular historian), writes in his 1976 work “History of Christianity:”

Eusebius [whose history can be dubious] presents the lists as evidence that orthodoxy had a continuous tradition from the earliest times in all the great Episcopal sees and that all the heretical movements were subsequent aberrations from the mainline of Christianity.

Looking behind the lists, however, a different picture emerges. In Edessa, on the edge of the Syrian desert, the proofs of the early establishment of Christianity were forgeries, almost certainly manufactured under Bishop Kune, the first orthodox Bishop, and actually a contemporary of Eusebius...

Orthodoxy was not established [In Egypt] until the time of Bishop Demetrius, 189-231, who set up a number of other sees and manufactured a genealogical tree for his own bishopric of Alexandria, which traces the foundation through ten mythical predecessors back to Mark, and so to Peter and Jesus...

Even in Antioch, where both Peter and Paul had been active, there seems to have been confusion until the end of the second century. Antioch completely lost their list...When Eusebius’s chief source for his Episcopal lists, Julius Africanus, tried to compile one for Antioch, he found only six names to cover the same period of time as twelve in Rome and ten in Alexandria.

• Roger Collins, writing of the Symmachan forgeries”, describes these “pro-Roman” “enhancements” to history:

So too would the spurious historical texts written anonymously or ascribed to earlier authors that are known collectively as the Symmachan forgeries. This was the first occasion on which the Roman church had revisited its own history, in particular the third and fourth centuries, in search of precedents That these were largely invented does not negate the significance of the process...

Some of the periods in question, such as the pontificates of Sylvester and Liberius (352-366), were already being seen more through the prism of legend than that of history, and in the Middle Ages texts were often forged because their authors were convinced of the truth of what they contained. Their faked documents provided tangible evidence of what was already believed true...

It is no coincidence that the first systematic works of papal history appear at the very time the Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes. (Collins, “Keepers of the Keys of Heaven,” pgs 80-82).

• Catholic theologian and Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that “the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:

Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...

As the reader will recall, I have expressed agreement with the consensus of scholars that available evidence indicates that the church of Rome was led by a college of presbyters, rather than a single bishop, for at least several decades of the second century...

Hence I cannot agree with Jones's judgment that there seems little reason to doubt the presence of a bishop in Rome already in the first century.

“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,22,24

• Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4 :

“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.

That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”

“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.

If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)

[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]

"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)

[Lacking such support for the modern concept of the primacy of the church of Rome with its papal jurisdiction, Schatz concludes that, “Therefore we must set aside from the outset any question such as 'was there a primacy in our sense of the word at that time?” Schatz therefore goes on to seek support for that as a development.]

“We probably cannot say for certain that there was a bishop of Rome [in 95 AD]. It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century.” (Schatz 4).

Schatiz additionally states,

Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)

• Roman Catholic scholar William La Due (taught canon law at St. Francis Seminary and the Catholic University of America) on Cyprian:

....those who see in The Unity of the Catholic Church, in the light of his entire episcopal life, an articulation of the Roman primacy - as we have come to know it, or even as it has evolved especially from the latter fourth century on - are reading a meaning into Cyprian which is not there." — The Chair of Saint Peter: A History of the Papacy [Maryknoll, New York: Orbis Books, 1999], p. 39

Roman Catholic [if liberal] Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U., author of “Why i am a Catholic:”

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes. Two and three claimants existed at times, and when there were three of them each excommunicating the other two, they all had to be dethroned and the Council of Carthage started the whole thing over again in 1417." — WHAT JESUS MEANT, p. 81

• American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission):

“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline tyupe of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)

• Raymond Brown [being criticized here], in “Priest and Bishop: Biblical Reflections,” could not prove on historical grounds, he said, that Christ instituted the priesthood or episcopacy as such; that those who presided at the Eucharist were really priests; that a separate priesthood began with Christ; that the early Christians looked upon the Eucharist as a sacrifice; that presbyter-bishops are traceable in any way to the Apostles; that Peter in his lifetime would be looked upon as the Bishop of Rome; that bishops were successors of the Apostles, even though Vatican II made the same claim.. (from, "A Wayward Turn in Biblical Theory" by Msr. George A. Kelly can be read on the internet at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Dossier/Jan-Feb00/Article5.html)

• Anglican/Roman Catholic Joint Preparatory Commission:

The New Testament contains no explicit record of a transmission of Peter's leadership; nor is the transmission of apostolic authority in general very clear. Furthermore, the Petrine texts were subjected to differing interpretations as early as the time of the Church Fathers.

Fathers and doctors of the Church gradually came to interpret the New Testament data as pointing in the same direction. This interpretation has been questioned, and it has been argued that it arose from an attempt to legitimize a development which had already occurred...

Yet it is possible to think that a primacy of the bishop of Rome is not contrary to the New Testament and is part of God's purpose regarding the Church's unity and catholicity, while admitting that the New Testament texts offer no sufficient basis for this. — (“Authority in the Church” II, ARCIC, para 2, 6,7; http://www.prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/arcic/doc/e_arcic_authority2.html)

More from Paul Johnson on development:

..the Church, operating on the principle of collective commonsense, was a haven for a very wide spectrum of opinion. In the West, diversity was disappearing fast; in the East, orthodoxy was becoming the largest single tradition by the early decades of the third century. The Church was now a great and numerous force in the empire, attracting men of wealth and high education, inevitably, then, there occurred a change of emphasis from purely practical development in response to need, to the deliberate thinking out of policy.

This expressed itself in two ways: the attempt to turn Christianity into a philosophical and political system, and the development of controlling devices to prevent this intellectualization of the faith from destroying it. The twin process began to operate in the early and middle decades of the third century, with Origen epitomizing the first element and Cyprian the second. If Paul brought to the first generation of Christians the useful skills of a trained theologian, Origen was the first great philosopher to rethink the new religion from first principles.

He [Origen] slept on the floor, ate no meat, drank no wine, had only one coat and no shoes. He almost certainly castrated himself,..

The effect of Origen’s work was to create a new science, biblical theology, whereby every sentence in the scriptures was systematically explored for hidden [much prone to metaphorical] meanings, different layers of meanings, allegory and so forth.....

Cyprian came from a wealthy family with a tradition of public service to the empire; within two years of his conversion he was made a bishop. He had to face the practical problems of persecution, survival and defence against attack. His solution was to gather together the developing threads of ecclesiastical order and authority and weave them into a tight system of absolute control...the confession of faith, even the Bible itself lost their meaning if used outside the Church.

Without the office of bishop there could be no Church: and without the Church, no salvation. The man who determined who was or was not a member of the Church and therefore eligible tor salvation was the bishop. He interpreted the scriptures in the light of the Church’s needs in any given situation; the only unambiguous instruction they contained being, to remain faithful to the Church and obey its rules.

With Cyprian, then, the freedom preached by Paul and based on the power of Christian truth was removed from the ordinary members of the Church, it was retained only by the bishops, through whom the Holy Spirit still worked, who were collectively delegated to represent the totality of Church members...With Bishop Cyprian, the analogy with secular government came to seem very close. But of course it lacked one element: the ‘emperor figure’ or supreme priest...

[Peter according to Cyprian was] the beneficiary of the famous ‘rock and keys’ text in Matthew. There is no evidence that Rome exploited this text to assert its primacy before about 250 - and then, interestingly enough, in conflict with the aggressive episcopalian Cyprian - but what is clear is that in the second half of the second century, and no doubt in response to Marcion’s Pauline heresy - the first heresy Rome itself had experienced - Paul was eliminated from any connection with the Rome episcopate and the office was firmly attached to Peter alone...

The Church survived, and steadily penetrated all ranks of society over a huge area, by avoiding or absorbing extremes, by compromise, by developing an urbane temperament and erecting secular-type structures to preserve its unity and conduct its business. There was in consequence a loss of spirituality or, as Paul would have put it, of freedom... - A History of Christianity, by Paul Johnson, pp. 51-61,63. transcribed using OCR software)

Roman church’s past was being reinvented for polemical purposes.

Eamon Duffy (Pontifical Historical Commission, Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College)

Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state”.

Peter Lampe (Lutheran)*:

The picture that finally emerges from Lampe’s analysis of surviving evidence is one he names ‘the fractionation of Roman Christianity’ (pp. 357–408). Not until the second half of the second century, under Anicetus, do we find compelling evidence for a monarchical episcopacy, and when it emerges, it is to manage relief shipments to dispersed Christians as well as social aid for the Roman poor (pp. 403–4). Before this period Roman Christians were ‘fractionated’ amongst dispersed house/tenement churches, each presided over by its own presbyter–bishop. This accounts for the evidence of social and theological diversity in second-century Roman Christianity, evidence of a degree of tolerance of theologically disparate groups without a single authority to regulate belief and practice, and the relatively late appearance of unambiguous representation of a single bishop over Rome. — Review of “Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” by Peter Lampe in Oxford’s Journal of Theological Studies, 2005
*Peter Lampe is a German Lutheran minister and theologian and Professor of New Testament Studies at the University of Heidelberg, whose work, “From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries,” was written in 1987 and translated to English in 2003. The Catholic historian Eamon Duffy (Irish Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge, and former President of Magdalene College), said “all modern discussion of the issues must now start from the exhaustive and persuasive analysis by Peter Lampe” — Saints and Sinners,” “A History of the Popes,” Yale, 1997, 2001, pg. 421).

Well, people also don’t believe that Bill Clinton’s personal life was relevant to his ability to be president. Liberals liked to sat that all the time.

Problem is, people’s lives are not compartmentalized like that. A man who has no integrity in his personal life is singularly unqualified to be a moral leader.

So what if it was debated?

It was established in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870, (from the church that never changes and is the same one Jesus established. /s)

“So what if it was debated?”

Exactly, so what?

“It was established in the First Vatican Council of 1869–1870,”

No. It was defined. There’s a difference.

“(from the church that never changes and is the same one Jesus established. /s)”

The Faith never changes. The Church makes changes to itself when necessary - as we see in scripture. Creation of the diaconate, for instance.

As said, all of Staples' proof texts only show Peter was being the street-level leader among brethren whose faith would persevere, despite faltering at times, and strengthen his brethren, but not that Peter was the exalted infallible head whom all the church looked to as the first of a line of infallible popes ruling from Rome.

There simply is no exalted Roman pope sitting above all the bishops, and the recipient of such perpetuated unique powers and superlatives such as,

“The Pope’s authority is unlimited, incalculable; it can strike, as Innocent III says, wherever sin is; it can punish every one; it allows no appeal and is itself Sovereign Caprice; for the Pope carries, according to the expression of Boniface VIII, all rights in the Shrine of his breast. As he has now become infallible, he can by the use of the little word, 'orbi,' (which means that he turns himself round to the whole Church) make every rule, every doctrine, every demand, into a certain and incontestable article of Faith. No right can stand against him, no personal or corporate liberty; or as the Canonists put it -- 'The tribunal of God and of the pope is one and the same.'” - Ignaz von Dollinger, in “A Letter Addressed to the Archbishop of Munich”, 1871 (quoted in The Acton Newman Relations (Fordham University Press), by MacDougall, pp. 119 120

It is Peter who provides briefly key testimony and sound counsel in Act 15, affirming the evangelical gospel, "purifying their hearts by faith," before baptism. And briefly urges this counsel to be accepted versus the gospel of the Judaizers. Yet it is James who provides the (approx. 175 word) conclusive decree on what is to be believed and done.

And after this chapter Peter is no more heard of in the rest of Acts, as the focus then shifts to Paul, who specifically records of Peter that he was married, as were the rest of the apostles, (1Cor. 9:5) but who fails to even mention Peter in Romans, despite mentioning 26 names. (Rm. 16)

Moreover, in all the church epistles and the rest of the the NT obedience to Peter as the universal head is never enjoined upon the churches, nor is such obedience to him as the universal head commended or the failure to do so faulted, even in the Lord's critique to all the churches in Rv. 2,3, or mentioned as solution to their problems. Not once is even prayer specifically for him exhorted (though he was prayed for, as others were). And which conspicuous omission, along with the manner of Petrine leadership that is recorded, is incongruous in the light of the Roman construance of Peter 's leadership, and fatal to it

Furthermore, for Peter the "more sure word of prophecy" is Scripture, (2Pt. 1:19-21) while there is zero mention of any apostolic successors, like for the martyred James, (Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas who was to maintain the original 12, ( Rv. 21:14) and thus only one was elected, and who was elected by the non-political, non-Roman OT method of casting lots, (Josh. 18:6; Prov. 16:33) not voting. (Acts 1:15ff)

Thus the Roman papacy is not seen, and Peter, who taught that the heart was purified by faith, a faith that is confessed in baptism, (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9) is not shown as being the infallible exalted head to whom all the churches looked to, while there is no mention of any successor for him or manifest preparation for such.

This does not mean a centralized magisterium is not the ideal, and if we can find men like Peter evangelicals would themselves see him as an true pastor. But Rome is not even in the running for such in the light of what manner of the apostles were, upon which the church was built, Jesus Christ being the rock. (Eph. 2:20;1Cor. 3:11)

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

It was under this manner of manifest apostles, in word, virtue and overt and abundant demonstrations of attestive supernatural power, that the primitive church had its unity:

"And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles." "And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart.." (Acts 2:46) (Acts 2:43) "Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them." (Acts 15:12)

And the greater the claims, then the greater the correspondent attestation must be, yet Rome claims for herself things which even the apostles did not, and which she utterly fails of warrant for.

And in contrast to Rome, the Lord and His established their truth claims upon the basis of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39, 14:11; Acts 17:2,11; Rm. 15:19; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) as it alone is the supreme material standard for obedience and testing truth claims, as is abundantly evidenced .

And which in principal forces the church (us) to continually manifest itself as the church of the living God, versus the institutionalized version of Catholicism and much fo Protestantism. Not that I think I am giving great witness to the resurrection either, but as a former weekly mass-going RC what I do know is the profound contrast between Biblical regeneration and that of ritualism.

You will find the difference in Greek. Not in the KJV,

Oh yes, yes yes, this should be a nice thread to read while curling up with a hot cup o’tea! Very relaxing.

Are there bad CEOs? Bad managers? Bad construction workers.

Separate the man from the duty. Do you see where you are erring?

Furthermore, if the testimony of how God used Peter is sppsd to support him as being the first of a line of supreme infallible popes whose power is unhindered and incalculable, then the even more instrumental use of Paul could be used (in parody) to support him as pope :

Here are the 51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy, using popular Catholic reasoning:

1. Paul is the only apostle who is called God's chosen vessel who will bear His name before Jews and Gentiles (Acts 9:15).

2. Paul is the last apostle chosen by God, apart from the other twelve.

3. The resurrected Christ appears to Paul in a different way than He appeared to the other apostles (Acts 9:3-6).

4. Paul is the only apostle who publicly rebukes and corrects another apostle (Galatians 2:11).

5. Paul is the only apostle who refers to his authority over all the churches (1 Corinthians 4:17, 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28).

6. Paul is the only apostle to call himself "father" (1 Corinthians 4:15).

7. Paul is the steward of God's grace (Ephesians 3:2). This means that Paul is the overseer of salvation. Fellowship with Paul and his successors is necessary for salvation.

8. Paul is mentioned more in the New Testament than any other apostle.

9. The book of Acts, which mentions all of the apostles, discusses Paul more than any other apostle.

10. Paul was the first apostle to write a book of scripture.

11. Paul wrote more books of the New Testament than any other apostle.

12. Paul is the first apostle to be taken to Heaven to receive a revelation (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

13. Paul is the only apostle Satan was concerned about enough to give him a thorn in the flesh (2 Corinthians 12:7).

14. Paul seems to have suffered for Christ more than any other apostle (2 Corinthians 11:21-33).

15. Paul seems to have received more opposition from false teachers than any other apostle did, since he was the Pope (Romans 3:8, 2 Corinthians 10:10, Galatians 1:7, 6:17, Philippians 1:17).

16. Paul seems to have traveled further and more often than any other apostle, as we see in Acts and his epistles, which is what we might expect a Pope to do.

17. Only Paul's teachings were so advanced, so deep, that another apostle acknowledged that some of his teachings were hard to understand (2 Peter 3:15-16). Peter's understanding of doctrine doesn't seem to be as advanced as Pope Paul's. Paul has the primacy of doctrinal knowledge.

18. Paul was the first apostle whose writings were recognized as scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).

19. Paul singles himself out as the standard of orthodoxy (1 Corinthians 14:37-38).

20. Only Paul refers to himself having a rod, a symbol of authority (1 Corinthians 4:21).

21. Paul initiates the council of Acts 15 by starting the debate with the false teachers (Acts 15:2) and delivering a report to the other church leaders (Acts 15:4).

22. Peter's comments in Acts 15:7-11 are accepted only because Pope Paul goes on to confirm them (Acts 15:12).

23. When the Corinthians were dividing over which apostle to associate themselves with, Paul's name was the first one mentioned (1 Corinthians 1:12).

24. Paul was the only apostle with the authority to deliver people over to Satan (1 Corinthians 5:5).

25. Paul had the best training and education of all the apostles (Philippians 3:4-6).

26. Paul is the only apostle to call the gospel "my gospel" (Romans 2:16).

27. Paul writes more about the identity of the church than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12, Colossians 1, Ephesians 4-5), which we might expect a Pope to do. Paul is the standard of orthodoxy and the Vicar of Christ on earth, so he has the primary responsibility for defining what the church is and who belongs to it.

28. Paul writes more about church government than any other apostle does, such as in his pastoral epistles.

29. Paul discusses church unity more than any other apostle does (1 Corinthians 12-14, Ephesians 4), suggesting that he was the one responsible for maintaining church unity because of his papal authority.

30. Paul writes more about the gospel than any other apostle does (Romans, Galatians). As the leader of Christianity, Paul was most responsible for explaining the gospel and other Christian doctrine.

31. After Jesus, Paul speaks more about the kingdom of God than anybody else does (Acts 14:22, 19:8, 1 Corinthians 4:20, Galatians 5:21, 2 Thessalonians 1:5). After leaving earth, Jesus passed on the responsibility of teaching about the kingdom of God to Paul, the king of the church on earth.

32. Paul speaks of revealing mysteries more than any other apostle does (Romans 11:25, 1 Corinthians 15:51, Ephesians 5:32, 6:19, 2 Thessalonians 2:7), since he was the chief teacher of the church.

33. Paul was the only apostle other people tried to impersonate (2 Thessalonians 2:2), since he had more authority than anybody else.

34. Paul's clothing works miracles (Acts 19:11-12).

35. Paul is delivered from death more than any other apostle (Acts 14:19, 28:3-6, 2 Corinthians 11:23).

36. The Jewish exorcists in Acts 19:13 associate themselves with Paul rather than with any other apostle.

37. The demons in Acts 19:15 recognize Paul's primacy.

38. The Jews in Acts 21:28 recognize Paul's primacy, saying that he's the man they hold most responsible for teaching Christianity everywhere.

39. Paul had authority over the finances of the church (Acts 24:26, 2 Corinthians 9:5, Philippians 4:15-18).

40. Paul acts as the chief shepherd of the church, taking responsibility for each individual (2 Corinthians 11:29). For example, Paul was Peter's shepherd (Galatians 2:11).

41. Paul interprets prophecy (2 Thessalonians 2:3-12).

42. Only Paul is referred to as being set apart for his ministry from his mother's womb (Galatians 1:15).

43. Jesus Christ is revealed in Paul (Galatians 1:16), meaning that Paul and his successors are the infallible standard of Christian orthodoxy.

44. Paul is the only apostle who works by himself, only later coordinating his efforts with the other apostles (Galatians 1:16-18).

45. Only Paul is referred to as bearing the brandmarks of Christ (Galatians 6:17).

46. Every Christian was interested in Paul and what was happening in his life, looking to him as their example and their encouragement (Philippians 1:12-14).

47. Christians served Paul (Philippians 2:30).

48. Paul worked more than the other apostles (1 Corinthians 15:10), since he had more responsibilities as Pope.

49. Paul was to be delivered from every evil deed (2 Timothy 4:18), meaning that he was infallible.

50. Only Paul is referred to as passing his papal authority on to [Ephesian] successors who would also have authority over the church of God (Acts 20:28).

51. Among the seven churches addressed in Revelation 2-3, the church of Ephesus is mentioned first, since the bishops of Ephesus have primacy as the successors of Paul. The church in Ephesus "cannot endure evil men" (Revelation 2:2), meaning that the bishop of Ephesus is infallible when speaking ex cathedra on matters of faith and morals. The Ephesian church puts false teachers to the test (Revelation 2:2) by exercising its papal authority. The bishop of Ephesus has the responsibility of evaluating all teachers and declaring which are orthodox and which are not. None of the other churches in Revelation 2-3 are described as having this authority.

When Christ named Peter(the Rock)from Simon. He is addressing someone outside of himself because Christ is the builder.
Matthew 18 And I tell you, you are Peter(The Rock),[d] and on this rock[e] I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g] 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

“And I Tell YOU, YOU ARE PETER” He changed the name Simon to PETER. Which means ROCK.

When God Changes names something is happening here. Peter is the Rock. He is addressing PETER without a doubt.

When I say in a conversation “ And I TELL YOU” I am pointing out to you . He is obviously addressing To the one he is talking at in the conversation.

Then if I would put “YOU ARE PETER” I am emphazing you are the ROCK also to the next words- “ and on this ROCK I will BUILD MY church, and the powers of death[f] shall not prevail against it.[g]

19 I will give YOU the KEYS of the kingdom of heaven,[h] and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

He is addressing “The Rock”that was named by him. PETER.

Also when you give Keys those Keys are to be passed on to someone responsible as a leader. I have a house with keys. I only pass them on to who is to be trusted.

Peace in Christ