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.

[DeprogramLiberalism]

Of course, binding and loosing have a larger function than what I addressed:

Mt.18.18-19 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. 19 “Again, truly I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything they ask for, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20 For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.”

I was referring to the specific “keys” given by Christ only to Peter. Go back and read my original post and see for yourself - #169.

[Springfield Reformer]

The objection in Matthew 23 is not the function of teaching or the function of having the role of a father, either biologically or spiritually.  The prohibition in view is ecclesiastical titles.  *Call* no man father."  The context clearly refers us to an existing practice of title-giving which the disciples were to avoid.  Jesus expanded it from just Rabbi to Father, Teacher, etc.,  because 1) only the heavenly Father should be called by that title, and 2) the giving of such titles tends to reinforce human pride, a corrupting influence Jesus wants His disciples to be free of.

So basically, functioning as a teacher or father is fine.  Imposing that as a title is still prohibited.

As for in what manner the body and blood are food, the burden of proof is on those who would claim the saying is literal, because in each passage where it is discussed there is abundant evidence for metaphor.

John 6 for example. In John's Gospel we see that Jesus has repeatedly resorted to metaphors about Himself (Door, Vine, Bread of Life, Way, etc.).  This is necessary because He is a one-of-a-kind experience for those who encounter Him.  Metaphor is precisely what one uses when one wishes to teach about something new and unfamiliar using analogy to something familiar.

In John 6, we are given clue after clue that this too is metaphorical teaching. For just one prominent example, see verse 35:

And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
(John 6:35)

You see here how Jesus satisfies hunger to those who come to Him, thirst to those who believe in Him.  Here you have a perfect example of the classic two-domain comparison that is the hallmark of metaphor.  For example, thirst is a physical primitive, universal to the human experience.  It is the known domain. Believing on Jesus is the unknown domain, something new to human experience.  A metaphor sets up a comparative relationship between these two distinct domains, such that we can learn about the one from the other.  A teaches us about B.

And if you have all that, the human mind automatically looks for the lesson of the metaphor. Romeo says of Juliet that she is lovely as a summer day.  Almost anyone instantly gets what Romeo is saying, that Juliet brings to him a kind of comfort and loveliness we associate with pleasant summer weather, clear blue skies, warming sunlight, a cool breeze, all the richness of it, and all in such a small and elegant passage.  A well chosen metaphor is a powerful way to communicate complex truth.

In John 6, the crowd is stuck on the rumbly in their tummy (to quote Winnie the Pooh).  But Jesus, as steady as a drum, has been directing them to faith in Him, a spiritual exercise. Back in chapter 3 Jesus directs Nicodemas to not look at physical birth, but spiritual.  In chapter 4, Jesus tells the woman at the well to look past the physical location of the temple to the worship that flows from spirit and truth. John 6 is a continuation of that theme.  It drives the whole of John's Gospel.

And here in chapter 6, verse 35 (see above) makes it unmistakable. The subject is food, and so hunger, but hunger that is satisfied by an act of belief in Jesus, in receiving Him as the Messiah, the Son of God.  Clear, unambiguous, elegant metaphor, teaching us the benefits and necessity of faith in Christ.

But the crowd was not disposed to learn that lesson, and cognitive science informs us that when the mind is resistant to the lesson of the metaphor, the metaphor can be misunderstood, just as it was here.

And as if that were not enough, Jesus spells it out in verse 63. He's working in the category of spirit, not flesh.

And at the end of the passage, Peter brings it home one more time.  He doesn't ask Jesus how he may eat His body and so gain eternal life.  He says, to whom else can we go, because you (Jesus) have the words of eternal life, and we do have faith in you as the Messiah, the Son of God.  Peter gets the metaphor.

So the preponderance of the evidence weighs heavily in favor of metaphor, both here and in each of the other relevant passages.  To escape the weight of that evidence, it is you who must come up with a reason why this passage should be understood as describing a form of crypto-cannibalism, in defiance of divine law. Occam's razor, FRiend.  The explanation requiring the least gymnastics that gives a full account of the facts has the better claim to being the truth.  Here, that explanation is metaphor.

Peace,

SR

[philetus]

“A person receives forgiveness of original and actual sins at Baptism”

No, a person of sins when he confesses his sins and asks God for forgiveness.

[MHGinTN]

Selah ... and thank you.

[ravenwolf]

Peter brings it home one more time.

---

Yep if Peter had of taken it as literal you can bet he would have had some questions.

[Syncro]

A person receives forgiveness of original and actual sins at Baptism

Catholic belief, but not a Christian belief. The Bible differs.

I will repeat my oft oposted statement: you may believe what you wish, but do not try to get other-than-Catholic Christians to agree with you.

Born again believing Christians follow the Bible, not tradition.

There are some scriptures I could share with you so you can see how salvation and cleansing from sin work if you wish. Let me know.

[ADSUM]

The Truth is the Truth.

You may elect to ignore or attempt to change the Truth, but the Truth doesn’t change.

God is the Truth and all are welcome to believe in God and do God’s will as Jesus taught that was reported in the Bible and orally.

The Catholic Church is the true church founded by Jesus Christ, and Jesus said He would be with us until the end of time.

The Catholic Church bases her teaching upon one source: The word of God. This divine revelation is transmitted in two ways: through Scripture and apostolic tradition. Many assume that only the writings of the apostles are the word of God. However, their oral transmission of the faith is also considered the word of God (1 Thess. 2:13). Few Protestant groups today accept the validity, let alone the authority, of tradition. In fact, many believe that Scripture is the only definitive source of divine truth. For this reason, they are critical of certain doctrines of the Catholic Church, which, according to them, have no basis in Scripture. In fact, those who embrace the theory of sola scriptura attempt to use the Bible to contradict, to prove baseless, certain Church teachings, such as the Real Presence and the existence of purgatory. However, these teachings are reflected in Scripture, as the passages we will look at illustrate.

Your comment; “Born again believing Christians follow the Bible”

I am glad that you read and follow the Bible. It is one’s personal interpretation that creates a problem when one assumes incorrect or false information and do not understand the context and change the meeting to suit themselves. Protestants also claim not to accept tradition, then they are unwilling to accept all of the teachings of Jesus.

I am a Catholic and I believe in the Truth and teachings of Jesus, and I do not accept the Protestant teachings that I consider a protest against the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus said Baptism was necessary for salvation and it does forgive sins. Please check it out so that you understand. what Jesus teaches.

[ADSUM]

FYI

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—s

For sins committed after baptism, a different sacrament is needed. It has been called penance, confession, and reconciliation,

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

[ADSUM]

God’s Peace be with you.

But I don’t accept your spin on God’s words.

[MHGinTN]

Sins are not equitable with smudges or muddy spots on the skin. Baptism deals with the spiritual, but the thief on the cross did not get a baptism yet Jesus assured him of His Saving Grace. When Jesus told the Sanhedrin members what is the work God requires fro salvation, Jesus did not include baptism or any of the catholic rituals. Baptism is a very good way to show the world you have made the spiritual commitment to be accounted under The Blood of Christ. Your mystery religion, catholicism, have twisted that blood as a literal drink for salvation and cleansing. THAT is blasphemous but catholics are unable to see it since they are so immerse in it. How can a practicing catholic admit they have been blaspheming the blood of Christ? And that is precisely what satan is counting on, the embarrassment that keeps one tied to the deceptions.

[ADSUM]

I don’t believe that the Apostles were “building up their own names” as they were martyred for Jesus.

The Gospels were about Jesus, not about the lives of His mother or the Apostles.

The Apostles did God’s will not their own.

[ravenwolf]

I don’t believe that the Apostles were “building up their own names” as they were martyred for Jesus.

The Gospels were about Jesus, not about the lives of His mother or the Apostles.

The Apostles did God’s will not their own.

---

True.

[Springfield Reformer]

No spin. I’m just reporting on what a metaphor is, and how the passages on the Lord’s Supper easily satisfy the criteria. Transubstantiation is the spin job.

Peace,

SR

[dhs12345]

But I don’t pray to my mother, my grandmother, my grandfather. I only pray to God.

I do not need an intermediary nor would I believe that God would want me to talk to Him through some person dead or still living. A person that was deemed worthy only by some earthly bound person or persons.

Mathew 6:9-13. Jesus says “This then is how you should pray: Our Father in Heaven,...” He doesn’t say Saint Paul or Saint Christopher or Mary.... I pray to Thee, please put in a good word for me with God.

From your quote — Math 28:20. So lets back it up to Math 28:18. Then Jesus came to them and said, “all authority in Heaven and on Earth has been given to me.” He is saying go teach. He is NOT saying that he is giving the authority to absolve sins! This is completely wrong.

It is as if the Catholic hierarchy and Church are claiming that they are EQUAL TO Christ. Oh my gosh!

[Mark17]

The most interesting thing I've noticed on all the Religion threads is that any time I make the statement about the veil being torn removing the barrier between man and God

Yes, the barrier between God and man was removed. I have a feeling, though I don't know for sure, but I would suspect the Pharisees may have sewn the veil back together. Remember, Jesus said they would not enter, and they tried to stop anyone else from entering. I think religionists, down through the ages, have kept up that barrier, going about trying to establish their own righteousness, (Rom 10:3) and won't figure it out, till they allow God to remove it. Many are called, few are chosen. (Matthew 22:14)

[Mark17]

No spin. I’m just reporting on what a metaphor is, and how the passages on the Lord’s Supper easily satisfy the criteria. Transubstantiation is the spin job.

Good job SR. I believe your "spin" is the true "spin" 😂 You are a good spinner. 😂 Keep up the good work. 😇

[Syncro]

My goodness, finally descended into condescending snark have we? You have done a good job of turning the tables.

I'm sorry you have so much apparent dislike for Protestants, of which I am not one and also sorry you don't follow the Bible for your spiritual growth.

You seem to be well trained in how to divert attention from Jesus and salvation to the Catholic church and it's twisting of Biblical truths to substantiate substantiating, Mary for salvation, and worshiping the same false God that Islam worships. Your pope's own proclamation.

I will remain a Christian saved by the Grace of God thorough belief in Jesus and accepting his promise of everlasting life.

I'm sorry you did not respond to my offer to show you scriptures on how to become a Christian.

I won't give up on you, and neither will Jesus.

[Syncro]

Pretty wordy, propping up Catholicism to the detriment of a soul that Jesus is trying to draw to Him.

Mary is the central figure of Catholicism, and the talking points are searing the conscience of those proclaiming them.

Yes, tradition is equal with the Bible, what a sad belief.

[Syncro]

For some the Holy Spirit is a mystery.

Pray for guidance from Him when you read the Bible.

It will open you up to Jesus and His simple plan to obtain Eternal Life in the Kingdom of God.

The Holy Spirit does NOT spin, pay attention!

[CynicalBear]

>>With me it is scripture not denomination.<<

Obviously not all of scripture. Instead of working to understand all of scripture you stated that you will disregard what Paul said if you think it disagrees with what Jesus said. Here's your quote "I also will take what Jesus says above what Paul says".

I've got news for you, the Holy Spirit inspired the words of scripture. If anyone thinks there are discrepancies they had better understand that it is they who have misunderstood. Taking some words of scripture over other words of scripture is tantamount to claiming the Holy Spirit made a mistake.