History of the Papacy, Ping!
Real history ping
Oh. This should prove interesting. Where’s that popcorn I left it somewhere...
Of course Jesus established the Papacy. Without the Papacy there would be no Christian religion to teach believe in Jesus.
Peter and the Non-Papacy, contra “Catholic Answers” Wrong, as while Peter was the initial street-level leader among the brethren, and the first church, and among other things befitting his leadership, the first to use the keys of the kingdom (the gospel, by faith in which souls are translated into the kingdom: Col. 1:13) and who exercised a general pastoral role (1Pt. 1:1) yet what is absent from Scripture (the weight of which is not the basis for the veracity of RC teaching anyway) is the Romish idea of papal “authority” over the rest of the apostles, and any apostolic successors (like for the martyred James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas, who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or apostolic successors by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff) In fact, nowhere are the apostles or the church universal shown looking to Peter as its supreme authoritative infallible head, nor is Peter shown giving the final sentence on a matter to the church universal (James did so in Acts 15), or giving directions to another apostle (James did in Acts 21, confirmatory of Peter and Paul's doctrine), or calling the elders to counsel (Paul did so in Acts 20) or referring to his authority over the churches (Paul again: 1 Cor. 4:17, 7:17, 2 Cor. 11:28) or even calling himself a “father” (Paul again: (1 Cor. 4:15; 1Tim. 1:2) or personally directly leading them into activity — except to go fishing — or directly reproving another apostle. (Gal. 2:11-14) Instead, Peter is the only apostle ever shown to be leading others into error, and being sternly reproved by another, and which was by an apostle who was preaching Christ before he even met Peter. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list. As a group, which is consistent with his street-level leadership, but which does not translate into being the first of a line of supreme infallible heads in Rome. Moreover, Peter is distinctly listed after John in Gal. 2:9, among these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man's person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. (Galatians 2:6)
Which again simply shows his leader qualities, as he did for good or bad as mentioned above (and exampled his love jumping naked into the water when Christ revealed himself, as well as in following Christ after his arrest, though he denied him out of prepentecostal weakness). And which reveals the importance of leadership, as well as the danger of unconditionally following such, and does not support the Romish perpetuated Petrine papacy, while it is Paul whom the Holy Spirit uses the most to disciple the churches, and examples the most pastoral qualities. It is not Peter (or Mary) that the Holy Spirit writes such things as: In weariness and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst, in fastings often, in cold and nakedness. Beside those things that are without, that which cometh upon me daily, the care of all the churches. Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is offended, and I burn not? (2 Corinthians 11:27-29) But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. (1 Corinthians 15:10) ...and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). Only because, as with other support texts, he only cites the gospels, thus excluding Paul, whose labor of love the Holy Spirit gives the more press to shortly after his conversion and ascendancy, even reproving Peter, and after Acts 12 Peter is not mentioned again in the life of the church in Acts, nor is there even one command to the churches to submit to Peter as its supreme head in any of the letters to the churches, or even any mention of Peter therein except in two, mentioning that he was married, and one (the second listed) of those who apparently were pillars in Gal. 2. Nor is submission specifically to Peter ever commended or exhorted as a solution in the extensive epistles, or in the letters to the churches in Rev. 2,3 despite their problems. Moreover, he is not even mentioned among 27 brethren Paul names in his epistle to the Romans, despite the tradition holding that Peter founded that church and was its head. Thus we have an invisible Roman papacy in Scripture. Nor do any of the rest of the examples cited by “Catholic Answers” support the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, nor does any unique instrumentality overcome that of Paul. See parody, 51 Biblical Proofs Of A Pauline Papacy And Ephesian Primacy)
Wrong. Peter did not announce anything as being a dogmatic decision, but instead he showed leadership in giving his testimony of how God gave the Spirit and purified the hearts of the Gentiles by faith — which occurred before baptism, contrary to the Catholic norm — and exhorted the assembly not to add obedience to the whole law of Moses to the gospel of grace, which gospel Paul and Barnabas were already preaching. No attempt was made by Peter to doctrinal support this by Scripture, nor was it declared as the final word, and as the matter was not yet settled, Paul and Barnabas added their testimony of the grace of God. When they were done, then James gave his 169 word (in English) Scripturally substantiated conclusive sentence which settled the matter. (Acts 15:14-21)
Yet God chose Paul to receive this revelation independent of Peter, and to provide the theology of it, and to rebuke holy Peter who in weakness effectively denied the full import of the One New Man. (Eph. 2:15)
Peter being the NT Abraham is simply not what the New Testament teaches.
A unique name can hardly be though to be unique to Peter, and the NT only uses “Barjona” in relation to Peter as well, (Mt. 16:17) while contrary to the Catholic assertion is research which finds, “the currency of Peter's name is confirmed in Tal Ilan's identification of three additional first and second-century Palestinian Jewish individuals who bear the name Petros.* It is worth noting that the Palestinian Talmud and midrashim repeatedly feature an early Amoraic Rabbi Yose ben Petros, whose father constitutes proof that even this Greek name was by no means unknown in the early rabbinic period. *Ilan 2002 s.v . The first of these is Petros ( c. 30 CE), a freedman of Agrippa's mother Berenice, whom Josephus mentions in passing in Ant. 18.6.3 §156 ( v.l. Protos ). The other two names are Patrin ### son of Istomachus at Masada (ostracon no. 413, pre-73) and Patron # # son of Joseph in a Bar Kokhba period papyrus deed at Nah . al H . ever (P.Yadin 46, 134 CE). Although these two names seem at first sight di ff erent from Petros , the Aramaic rendition of Greek names in -?# as # # or ### was in fact well established, as Ilan 2002:27 demonstrates (cf. similarly Dalman 1905:176) — http://www.jjs-online.net/doc.php?id=055_01_058_1 — Simon Peter's Names in Jewish Sources M arkus B ockmuehl Faculty of Divinity, University of Cambridge Of course, Simon needed a new name, as Simon was a common name by the Second Temple Period, and tribe from which it comes “is the only one of the twelve tribes to be omitted from Moses’ blessing in Deut. 33, and it produced no judges or kings.”
This is another unproven statement stated as fact, while what the Spirit says in revealing it to us is what is critical. As regards Aramaic, though it certainly it is well supported that the Lord spoke Aramaic as well as Greek (a the common language of Palestine at that time), Hebrew and perhaps Latin, that He mainly spoke one of the forms of Aramaic to His disciples, and especially in Mt. 18, is not certain. Richard A. Horsley in “Galilee: History, Politics, People,” states, “It is difficult in the extreme to interpret the fragmentary evidence available and draw conclusions for the use of languages in late second-temple Galilee” (p. 247). Although Aramaic may have been the most common tongue, yet a survey covering 700 BC to 300 AD did find, "Of all Hebrew inscriptions from the Mediterranean world, 68 percent are in Greek, 18 percent in Hebrew or Aramaic, 12 percent in Latin, and 2 percent are bilingual." If we omit those from the Holy Land: 85 % Greek, 10% Latin, 5% in another language.. — Pieter van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs, in Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 2 Kampen Kok Pharos, 1991. Reviewed in CBQ, July 1993. https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LANGPAL.TXT
This is another unproven statement stated as fact. Only a relative few scholars hold that Matthew first appeared in Hebrew or Aramaic, while most believe that the four biblical Gospels were written in Greek. That the Spirit sometimes distinctively records something in Aramaic testifies to this being an exception. Moreover, the Aramaic argument as determinative is refuted by the very fact that the Holy Spirit choose to spread the word in Greek, and as can be seen by duplicate accounts, what He recorded is not necessarily even a verbatim record, as the same Spirit by which Christ spoke sometimes rephrases and expands what was said in providing a fuller revelation. Thus we should go by what the Holy Spirit chose to reveal the teachings of God in, not argue on that basis of what we think was meant in an original tongue. In addition, far from Aramaic being determinative, this linguistical issue is an ongoing scholarly debate. As another among many researchers finds, Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter) C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other. More In any case, the linguistical debate is endless and on going, while the answer is to examine what was said in context and how this is understood in the rest of Scripture. If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, 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) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “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.
He means he found one, while in the NT Pétros is used for Peter while Petra is used for “rock” such as one builds his house upon that will not be moved, and for Christ. (rock, Mat_7:24-25 (2), Mat_16:18, Mat_27:60, Mar_15:46, Luk_6:48 (2), Luk_8:6, Luk_8:13, Rom_9:33, 1Co_10:4 (2), 1Pe_2:8 rocks, Mat_27:51, Rev_6:15-16 (2)) Other researchers at least hold that Pétros primarily denotes, “a stone (pebble), such as a small rock found along a pathway. 4074 /Pétros ("small stone") then stands in contrast to 4073 /pétra ("cliff, boulder," Abbott-Smith). "4074 (Pétros) is an isolated rock and 4073 (pétra) is a cliff" (TDNT, 3, 100). "4074 — http://biblehub.com/greek/4074.htm Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important...The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock,... And underneath Peter was a mantle of bedrock. The Catholic imagination knows no bounds when they need to argue for something that is not in Scripture, and as said and shown, Peter as being the infallible Roman rock upon which the church is continually built is simply not what the Holy Spirit reveals in the rest of Scripture, let alone his office been perpetuated by such. Outside of the absence of manifestation of this Roman papacy in Scripture, even Catholic scholars as well as others provide evidence against the Roman propaganda of such. 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,” finds, 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) Catholic theologian and a 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, 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... — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222.
No, there is no “special sense” except what RCs read into the text, nor apart from the magisterial judicial aspect which flows from the OT, (Dt. 17:8-13) was the spiritual power of binding and loosing restricted to the magisterium, as it is provided for all righteous disciples. (Mt. 18:19,20; Ja. 5:16-18) The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18). Which key is the gospel, by which one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13) and which all are called to preach. As for Is. 22, if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28). For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father). Thus if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
Which was fitting, both due to his thrice denial as well as his leadership, which was seen in leading souls to go fishing or treating Gentiles as second class believers, or bravely preaching the gospel and enduring persecution. And John 21:15-1, as with other proffered proof texts, simply does not translate into an infallible, supreme, perpetuated Petrine papacy. Instead, only presbuteros/episkopos are seen being ordained in a continual sense, (1Tim. 3:1-7; Titus 1:5-7) and to which are committed the care of the churches. (Acts 20:28)
Same as above and supports the principal of leadership. Just as the magisterial office is supported by Scripture, but not the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults), so also is leadership, but not a perpetually ensured infallible papacy to whom all the church looks to as its exalted head, with full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered, and who is judged by no one. |