Was The Papacy Established By Christ?

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.

all Protestant denominations agree on is that the Roman Catholic Church is not the one true church of God. Protestant denominations are unanimous in rejecting the papacy, the supremacy of Rome, prayer to saints/Mary, worship of saints/Mary, transubstantiation, purgatory, and most other Roman Catholic dogmas. Sola Scriptura has led all Protestant denominations to the same conclusion – the Bible does not teach many of the things Roman Catholics practice/believe.

And more than that, the bible teaches many things that are contrary to the Catholic religion...The practices of the Catholic religion are condemned in the bible...

The Catholic teachings are all based on the Bible and the teachings of Jesus, except where protestants and others misrepresent these teachings.

If that was true there wouldn't be so many millions of non Catholic Christians who reject the Catholic religion based on what the scriptures say...

Here's something Catholics don't know...

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

We Christians have the same Holy Spirit 'in us' as the Holy Spirit you guys claim is leading your pope...We have the same teacher...Neither your popes nor any other Catholic clergy has the authority to understand the scriptures any more than we do...

Jesus told the Apostles Go Baptize and teach all nations.

Mat 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

And so your religion baptizes everything that's not bolted down...And this is just how rogue your religion is...Your religion conveniently leaves out the companion verse to convince you people that you need to baptize babies...

Luk 24:47 And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem.

Act_2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

After reading that, do you still think it's all right to baptize babies who can not possibly repent???

If they [Born again believers in Jesus that with all their heart and soul follow Jesus and what He taught] don’t want to believe in the Real Presence...

That phrase to Catholics means Jesus in a small piece of bread, to be consumed or put in a fancy case and worshiped as if it is Jesus.

Certainly Christians will not believe that.

There is no Holy Bible Scripture where that is condoned or even alluded to with out a "clever" twisting of God's Word.

It is not the Born again believers in Jesus that with all their heart and soul follow Jesus and what He taught that "may not be following God’s will."

... But to insist that Jesus is wrong...

Nice Segway, but no Christians are or ever will say that Jesus is wrong.

What is wrong is to insist that Jesus instituted something that is no where to be found in the Word of God.

How very tacky to state what you stated. But I so understand that you have to believe what the Catholic Church teaches even if you have to accuse others falsely of horrible blaspheme.

We do not worship Mary, but we place her in high esteem and defend the Church’s teachings

So you agree with Leo and Pius that salvation can be obtained from Mary? (See an earlier post of mine for documentation.)

As far as your problems with Protestant denominations, I'm not interested. (Catholicism, heal thyself...there is a beam to deal with)

I am not a Protestant.

The words of a heretic: They are a rogue religion that has no basis in scripture.

As I have not tried to hide it, I agree with some things the Catholics teach and some things the protestants teach.

Not trying to stay in the middle, but can make more people dislike me.

With me it is scripture not denomination.

For instance, and as some one will say( there you go again ) Protestants don`t like me because I believe Jesus was Mary`s only son, but do not have an agenda in mind.

And I also will take what Jesus says above what Paul says if the Protestant`s uses what Paul said to dispute what Jesus said, and they do it all of the time but deny it.

The Catholics don`t like me because I believe Mathew 23 5 through 11 is absolutely literal, meaning titles.

And I believe the eating of the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus was never intended to be taken literally.

Now, should every member of the SB convention leave because of sinful, wicked pastors?

No, because Baptists don't make the same claim as Catholics. When I was in Virginia, our fellowship (baptistic but not SB) disciplined one of the associate pastors for sexual sin. It is sadly a very common problem. But it didn't ever occur to us to leave, because no pastor there nor any SB or other Baptist pastor I know of claims to be the sole Vicar of Christ on earth. The paradigm is different. From our point of view the only infallible representative of God on earth, as a living person, is the Holy Spirit. But for a man to claim the Vicarship and then fail to live up to that claim is to do far more damage than any mere pastor with moral failure could ever do. It is a claim that directly affronts the Person of Christ Himself. It is high blasphemy.

But I understand the defensive claim, I think. It's the office that's supposedly infallibly representative, not the man. And so one may theoretically separate the representation of Christ from the reality of the man who is supposedly the representative. He could be any old evil blaggard and still serve as the Vicar of Christ. If you feel comfortable with that, that's your choice. But to me it represents a justification for ecclesiastical schizophrenia. I would never have imagined reading through the NT after my conversion a situation where Christ would intentionally vest all His authority on earth in a man driven by Satanic impulses. There is something really wrong with that picture.

But as for me and mine, our "Vicar of Christ" is no fallible pastor nor fallible Roman pontifex maximus reincarnated, but is the truly infallible, living, sinless Holy Spirit, who is the only one ever officially presented in Scripture as the true replacement for Christ on earth while He is away preparing to receive us into Heaven:

Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
(John 16:7-8)

Peace,

SR

Saints are those in Heaven with Christ. So I expect some of my ancestors are in Heaven with God and they are saints including my mother and grandparents. There are canonized saints that have gone through a process that the Catholic Church declares them a saint . Such as ST. Pope John Paul II, ST. John XXIII, ST Christopher, etc.

Just as a mother prays to God on behalf of her children or herself, we pray to the Blessed Mother and the saints to listen to us and also pray to God for us.

As Scripture indicates, those in heaven are aware of the prayers of those on earth. This can be seen, for example, in Revelation 5:8, where John depicts the saints in heaven offering our prayers to God under the form of “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” But if the saints in heaven are offering our prayers to God, then they must be aware of our prayers. They are aware of our petitions and present them to God by interceding for us.
But asking one person to pray for you in no way violates Christ’s mediatorship, as can be seen from considering the way in which Christ is a mediator. First, Christ is a unique mediator between man and God because he is the only person who is both God and man. He is the only bridge between the two, the only God-man. But that role as mediator is not compromised in the least by the fact that others intercede for us. Furthermore, Christ is a unique mediator between God and man because he is the Mediator of the New Covenant (Heb. 9:15, 12:24), just as Moses was the mediator (Greek mesitas) of the Old Covenant (Gal. 3:19–20).

Why not pray directly to Jesus?” they ask.
The answer is: “Of course one should pray directly to Jesus!” But that does not mean it is not also a good thing to ask others to pray for one as well.

Catholics do not worship anyone but God.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/praying-to-the-saints

All pardon for sins ultimately comes from Christ’s finished work on Calvary, but how is this pardon received by individuals? Did Christ leave us any means within the Church to take away sin? The Bible says he gave us two means.

Baptism was given to take away the sin inherited from Adam (original sin) and any sins we personally committed before baptism—sins we personally commit are called actual sins, because they come from our own acts.

For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation, each word emphasizing one of its.aspects. During his life, Christ forgave sins, as in the case of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:1–11) and the woman who anointed his feet (Luke 7:48). He exercised this power in his human capacity as the Messiah or Son of man, telling us, “the Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins” (Matt. 9:6), which is why the Gospel writer himself explains that God “had given such authority to men” (Matt. 9:8).

Since he would not always be with the Church visibly, Christ gave this power to other men so the Church, which is the continuation of his presence throughout time (Matt. 28:20), would be able to offer forgiveness to future generations. He gave his power to the apostles, and it was a power that could be passed on to their successors and agents, since the apostles wouldn’t always be on earth either, but people would still be sinning.

God had sent Jesus to forgive sins, but after his resurrection Jesus told the apostles, “‘As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.’ And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained’” (John 20:21–23). (This is one of only two times we are told that God breathed on man, the other being in Genesis 2:7, when he made man a living soul. It emphasizes how important the establishment of the sacrament of penance was.)

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-forgiveness-of-sins

Jesus delegated the authority to forgive sins to Bishops and Priests. Yes, we gain salvation and eternal life with God through the sacrifice on the cross by Jesus.

a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, “But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ” (Matt. 23:8–10).

The first problem is that although Jesus seems to prohibit the use of the term “teacher,” in Matthew 28:19–20, Christ himself appointed certain men to be teachers in his Church: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations . . . teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.” Paul speaks of his commission as a teacher: “For this I was appointed a preacher and apostle . . . a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth” (1 Tim. 2:7); “For this gospel I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher” (2 Tim. 1:11). He also reminds us that the Church has an office of teacher: “God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers” (1 Cor. 12:28); and “his gifts were that some should be apostles, some prophets, some evangelists, some pastors and teachers” (Eph. 4:11). There is no doubt that Paul was not violating Christ’s teaching in Matthew 23 by referring so often to others as “teachers.”

Why do you believe that when Jesus stated “that His Body and Blood was food and drink for eternal life” were not to be taken literally?

You may wish to read the following article.

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-real-presence

You are not required to believe in the Truth.

Your comment: “That phrase to Catholics means Jesus in a small piece of bread, to be consumed or put in a fancy case and worshiped as if it is Jesus.”

Yes for your information that is Jesus both divine and human and deserves to be worshiped as God.

Many walked away from Christ because of His statement and no longer followed Him.

It is amazing that some profess belief in Jesus and that they are saved before they die, yet fail to understand the words that Jesus spoke directly about His Body and Blood several times and offered them to the Apostles at the Last Supper (the Real Presence).

I do hope you find salvation and the Truth.

The Church was freed from the Law, and God again honored that decision as loosed in heaven. That is the extent of the binding and loosing that Peter had with the keys given to him by Christ - the keys to bind and loose the Law on the Church. That is simply unwarranted and far too restrictive. Binding and loosing are not new functions, but flow from the OT. The magisterium therein issued binding judgments (to bind or loose), dissent from which was a capital crime. (Dt. 17:8-13) Even a father could bind or loose his daughter, and a husband his wife, from vows within a period that she made it.

And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. (Numbers 30:4)

Elijah bound the heavens for 3.5 years and then loosed them, and who James invokes as an example of what believers can do in James 5: 16-18)

I see no problem there at all, the Jews were fond of being called Master, teacher or Rabi and obviously father they were teaching nobody but was enjoying the title and living style of some one important.

Jesus told his apostles to go out and preach the gospel with out attaching titles to them selves, they were to preach the gospel not build up their own names.

That is most likely why most of them are not heard from again but the gospel was preached.

Paul, that may be a different story as far as I am concerned.

Another example of the Catholic doctrine coming from Paul while Peter is just a figure head.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.