Was The Papacy Established By Christ?

triablogue ^ | June 23, 2006 | Jason Engwer

[RnMomof7]

For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.

Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:

"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)

Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.

Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.

Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.

If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.

That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.

Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:

"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….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 author 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.'…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." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)

What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.

Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.

So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?

In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.

In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.

Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?

Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.

There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.

[terycarl]

If you've abandoned Christ's church" Christ's Church was a synagogue and He went there regularly on Sabbath Luke 4:16

Of course Jesus was a Jew, up to the point where He established the Catholic church....remember, upon this rock I will build MY CHURCH....

[ADSUM]

Your comment: “Who are we to argue with God? Would you feel more comfortable in a nice stained glass Church with graven images filled with people? The Apostles did not have such luxuries.”

Jesus said his Church would be “the light of the world.” He then noted that “a city set on a hill cannot be hid” (Matt. 5:14). This means his Church is a visible organization. It must have characteristics that clearly identify it and that distinguish it from other churches. Jesus promised, “I will build my Church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). This means that his Church will never be destroyed and will never fall away from him. His Church will survive until his return.

Some Christians claim, “The Bible is all I need,” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16). The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

Jesus promised he would not leave us orphans (John 14:18) but would send the Holy Spirit to guide and protect us (John 15:26). He gave the sacraments to heal, feed, and strengthen us. The seven sacraments —baptism, the Eucharist, penance (also called reconciliation or confession), confirmation, holy orders, matrimony, and the anointing of the sick—are not just symbols. They are signs that actually convey God’s grace and love.

From Catholic answers.

[ravenwolf]

Actually Peter had been a part of the problem of being a Judaizer and had to be confronted by Paul for causing division in the church (read Gal 2:11)

---

Yes, that is one question I have to ask my self about Paul.

Jesus said if a brother sins against you or in some versions it just says sins, that you are to go to him alone and tell him about it just between you and him, but in fact Paul told the whole world.

Well one thing I know is Rome is “babylon “ now>>>>>>

I believe it is the mother Church which are the Catholic Church and her daughters the Protestants.

Honestly I wish I did not believe some of the things I do and not really educated enough on it to know if I understand it correctly or not.

But on the other hand we might be better off ( at least speaking for myself if we knew nothing but the gospel of Jesus.

[MHGinTN]

Um, Jesus establish His Church. That doesn’t say Catholic Church. Would you lay the Inquisition and all the other abominations under catholic rule at Jesus’s feet? Do you get saved over and over, or have you mastered the yoyo and only get resaved occasionally?

[MHGinTN]

“This means” bwahahaha, you said ‘This means’. Did your Priest tell you that or did you have a little Holy Spirit leadership to get there?

[MHGinTN]

I shall call you brother or sister hereafter in my prayers when you come up! So well said ...

[terycarl]

YOUR priests are insisting you believe you are drinking the literal blood of Christ at the Eucharist/Remembrance. YOUR religion,

Yeah, that old line "take and drink of this, this is a cup of my blood which will be shed for the forgiveness of sin"...He was probably just kidding..........

[BipolarBob]

In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20–21, 3:15–16).

That is NOT what those verses say.

The “Bible alone” theory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

No, not while the Apostles and eyewitnesses were alive, I suppose not. But they died off. Their witness is what we have left. The Word of God is our compass to keep us straying because denominations will try to lead us astray. We test all things by His Word. It is sacred.

[terycarl]

the word ‘apostasia’ found in 2Thess2:3 was translated as THE (definite article in Greek) Departure for the first several Bibles. But when the Catholic Bible, the Rheims Bible was issued the word was changed to mean ‘a’ 9indefinite article) revolt.

How do you know???

[BipolarBob]

Of course Jesus was a Jew, up to the point where He established the Catholic church.

He did not establish the Catholic Church. Mankind did that. The believers were justified by faith in the Blood of Jesus as a sacrifice for their sins. It is that simple. It is that hard. It is more than a denomination, it is a way of life. They called it The Way.

[ravenwolf]

Where do you get the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, Mary of Catholicism, NT pastors distinctively named priests, consuming human flesh to obtain spiritual life, praying to created beings in Heaven, etc. out of Paul’s writings?

---

There are also a few other things.

What I should have said is that I can see some of the teachings of Paul in the Catholic Church which protestants are against and which I also do not believe in.

Mathew 23
8 But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.

9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

1 Corinthians 4
14 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.

15 For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

16 Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

It looks to me like Paul is warning them that he is their father in the Gospel and to be followers of him, not of Christ but of him.

The Catholic Church go by those two very things.

[Springfield Reformer]

the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy

Not only absent from Scripture, but from history as well, especially if one looks at primary sources. See for example Peter Lampe's landmark work, "From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries:"

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2014/01/an-extended-review-of-peter-lampes-from.html

The interesting thing is that during the first two centuries, Christianity in Rome was largely held by the "riff raff,"  the social outcasts, who were largely imports from other lands, many slaves captured and brought in to supply Rome with an inexpensive and disposable workforce.  It was exactly as Paul said, not many wise, not many noble.

And for those first two centuries, while Christianity remained largely a curious cult not popular with the upper class, the assemblies remained diverse, without any discernible central leadership, and little impacted by the pagan influences surrounding them.  The later-developed lists purporting to show a continuity of popes during that early period have proved to be impossible to support from primary sources.  

According to Lampe, the early congregations were diverse and decentralized, with no single "Bishop of Rome."  What did happen is that toward the end of the Second Century, power began to concentrate in those individuals in Rome who gathered the ecumenical funding for charitable projects outside of Rome, and it is from these late roots that a more traceable papacy would ultimately emerge.  Their claim to the "Throne of Peter" was retroactive, but not based on demonstrable history.

Then, when the tide finally began to turn at the beginning of the Third Century, Christianity, again according to primary sources dug up by Lampe and others, began to be more accepted in the upper classes of Rome, where full-on cultural Romans set themselves to reconcile this curious new cult with the pagan religious atmosphere that dominated Rome at the time.  It is easy to see how the Christian stories could supply them with a rich supply of material that to them seemed an honest correspondence with the pagan deities, practices, and ecclesiastical structures in which they had been immersed for centuries.  They were going to "adopt" Christianity and dress it up in Roman attire, because that was what they knew.  In hindsight, it would be a hard error to avoid, as we all have a tendency to see divine truth through our own culturally tainted lenses.

But no, there is no verifiable history of the papacy for the first two centuries.

Peace,

SR

[terycarl]

I believe you were the one that said there were 30.000 protestant denominations ... just showing how desperate Rome is that they have to make up junk like that

Actually, Rome and the Catholic church set the standard...they don't have to, nor do they, make up anything....all the various misinterpretations of the Bible which the Catholic church compiled have been done by the thousands of protestant denominations.

[MHGinTN]

Your shallow understanding is caused by your lack of study in the Messiah. The Passover meal was where Jesus broke the bread (and no bones of Him were broken on the cross) and passed the cup of wine then said He would not drink it again until He comes into His Kingdom. If you have read this far, then you are in good shape, because I'm gonna recommend a book for your spiritual enjoyment. No really, it is a most enjoyable read, about the Feats of Israel and how they speak of Jesus and how they give prophecy of Him. The book is 'Unlocking The Secrets of The Feasts' by Michael Norten. The book is written/directed by Judaism scholars who are Christians. If you love Jesus Christ the book will regale your soul. You will read astonishingly beautiful prefigurings of Jesus. Here's a short paraphrase of just one morsel.

The Shepards who came to Bethlehem when Jesus was in the manger, after an Angel told them to seek him there, were actually more than common shepards. They were in a tower which gave them an excellent view of the baby lambs being born, so they could fetch the ones without spot or blemish, wrap a few strips of cloth around them so they were preserved for the sacrifice of Passover and Atonement. When the Angel told them they would find the child lying in a manger wrapped in swaddling cloth, the shepards knew this was a special child because they would place the special wrapped lambs 'up' in a manger to prevent them becoming blemished!

[MHGinTN]

And one more thing, a repetition of things posted to you before: Jesus would not have given His blood to His disciples to drink, even before His Sacrifice and because it would be an abomination before God to break a command given TO ALL THEIR GENERATIONS to not drink the blood. For the Life is in the Blood and it is That Perfect life in Jesus’s blood which was specifically destined to spread on the Mercy Seat to cover the laws, the law of sin and death so you can have the Holy Spirit of God in you now. His Precious blood is not for your stomach, it is for your soul and spirit. That’s why He told them to do that ritual in REMEMBRANCE of what He was about to do for them and all who come to Christ Jesus.

[MHGinTN]

I have seen one of the earlier Bibles than the Reims Bible.

[BipolarBob]

Yeah, that old line "take and drink of this, this is a cup of my blood which will be shed for the forgiveness of sin"...He was probably just kidding..........

He wasn't kidding but He was speaking metaphorically. The wine and bread represented His blood and body. They were to drink and eat this together for it was ushering in a new covenant with His sacrifice on the cross. When He warned the Disciples about the "leaven of the Pharisees", He wasn't speaking of gluten but of their teachings. Really, you should read the Bible more then you would know this already.

[advertising guy]

bttt

[MHGinTN]

“the “leaven of the Pharisees” Great point!!! He was using metaphor then and in the Upper Room. They would have caught the metaphor immediately in the Upper Room because not too many days before He had taken the time to explain the metaphor of the Pharisee’s leaven, and these Jewish men knew that for all their generations they were to never drink the blood.

[mrobisr]

Satanism has survived also, but what does that mean exactly? Well it means nothing at all and by Scripture your religion will survive, but unfortunately as and example of what NOT to be.