Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by 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.
Let's see now....Jesus said "THIS IS MY BODY"
You and Bill Clinton argue over what the meaning of the word "is" is......brilliant...(in both instances)..not
Rome wrote them down for you and you certainly can't prove them wrong....Rome wins....they got to go first!!
When I was a catholic, I believed He meant the bread was literally His body. Now that I am an ex catholic, I don't believe it at all. He meant it figuratively, because we are prohibited from drinking blood. That would be cannibalism. I am not into that. You can drink blood if you want, I won't do it. Cannibalism is evil, and I don't want to be evil. I understand things much better, now that I am an ex catholic. I am waiting for Gabriel to blow his bugle. Then we will see who has their stuff together. Have a nice forever. I KNOW I will. 😇 You can take that to the bank. 🏦
> has nothing to do with rightly dividing the word<
Well, you “rightly divide” it your way and I’ll “rightly divide” it mine.
There are lots of false mystery religions out there. 😇
You didn’t finish my quote. I said no as well, only for different reasons. You’re answer to my post sounds a lot like the man in the synagogue “thanking” God he was not like the other man.
Well you can follow Paul and I’ll follow Jesus. That argument doesn’t make sense. Well you can just tear out all the books in the Bible that weren’t written by Paul. I think I’ll hang on and follow all of it.
>Who gets to JUDGE whether this is EVIL or not?
Li’l popettes?<
Apparently you do.
We all get hung up on what ‘Jesus said’. So let’s see what he said and what it means to me...
Jesus said, ‘this is my body’
Jesus said, ‘this is my blood’
Catholics talk about Transubstiation, Protestants about Transliteration. So let’s look at what he said...
He did not say ‘this becomes my body’, He did not say, ‘this represents my body’. He said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
There is now cannibalism in that.
>If Pete got this ‘honor’ from Christ; where is the expected uproar from the others who got left out?
There wasn’t ANY of them so ‘holy’ that they’d accept this without murmuring!<
You seem to be very angry. Why?
Matthew 10:14Luke 9:5
Mark 6:11
Matthew 10:14
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
Where is it that Jesus told apostles or Catholic priests to turn bread into Jesus' body??? Why did Jesus call the supposed transformed blood the fruit of the vine??? And Paul call the bread, bread???
There is no cannibalism in a metaphor, that is true. And no need to say “represents,” either. Everybody already knows that’s what a metaphor does, sort of, except it’s really richer than that. But “A is B” is a plain old ordinary direct metaphor, and in any other case where folks didn’t have a dog in the fight, it wouldn’t even be an argument.
Peace,
SR
It sounded to me like you were making an equivalence between Baptists and Catholics, as in, if we get a bad pastor, it doesn’t invalidate the church, thus Catholics can have a bad pope without invalidating their church. If I misunderstood you on that, I’m sorry.
But if I did understand you correctly, that’s a poor argument for a bad pope. The structure is different. Baptists are not claiming to have a human “Vicar of Christ.” Catholics do make that claim. We’re not claiming to be better than y’all. We just don’t have to back up the claim that you do have to back up. Our Vicar of Christ really is the Holy Spirit, and He is guaranteed to be sinless, no matter how badly any one of us non-Vicars messes up.
It’s a big difference. I’m sorry it offends you, but it’s what Scripture teaches, so how can we dissent from it without sinning?
Peace,
SR
Asked and answered in previous discussion. The short form is:
1) that’s a circular argument. You are entering as evidence of non-metaphoric usage, passages that most certainly DO meet the criteria for metaphor, and which others before us and well before the Reformation have read as metaphor. Logically, you can’t use them as evidence when they are the very passages you are trying to prove something about. That’s called begging the question, baking a predetermined answer into the formulation of the question.
2) It doesn’t matter whether there are any other examples besides those that describe the Lord’s Supper. Metaphor does not rely on a particular conjugation of verb or the presence or absence of possessive pronouns. It is a nearly universal function of human psychology. All that is needed is a comparison of two domains not normally associated with each other. The verb of being “to be” links the two domains, and the mind starts looking for the metaphorical relationship.
A simple example in English: A proud Grampa looks at his beloved granddaughter and says “This is my little angel.” Does any reasonable listener think he is speaking of a small, non-human, angelic being? Or do they know, from the combination of physical and verbal cues, he is using a metaphor to describe his wonderful granddaughter? Of course they know.
But somehow, when we come to this passage, even though the same structure is there, the same kind of physical and verbal cues, we get this big fight. It makes no sense. I truly believe no one would find this the least bit controversial if there were not some deep seated resistance to the lesson of the metaphor.
Peace,
SR
Amen bro.
Iscool, you are correct. As you say, He never said. And also, if a few of us gather together in our home we do not need clergy to do any kind of ‘consecration’ on the bread and the wine to celebrate communion with him. He took bread and blessed it, He took the cup and gave thanks...we do that...in remembrance of Him.
Your comment: “He did not say ‘this becomes my body’, He did not say, ‘this represents my body’. He said this IS my body, this IS my blood.
Take it for what he said. It does not become, it does not represent, It is!
There is now cannibalism in that.”
Well at least One Protestant can read the actual words, but has a faulty analysis.
From Catholic answers:http://www.catholic.com/blog/tim-staples/are-catholics-cannibals
Miriam-Webster defines cannibalism as:
1. The usually ritualistic eating of human flesh by a human being.
2. The eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of the same kind.
Cannibalism implies here the actual chewing, swallowing, and metabolizing of flesh and blood either after or during the killing of a human being; at least, if we stick to definition #1.
Catholics do not do any of this in the Eucharist. Though Christ is substantially present—body, blood, soul and divinity—in the Eucharist, the accidents of bread and wine remain. Here it is important to define terms. When the Church teaches the bread and wine at Mass are transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ, we have to understand what this means. The word, transubstantiation, literally means “transformation of the substance.” “Substance” refers to that which makes a thing essentially what it is. Thus, “substance” and “essence” are synonyms. For example, man is essentially comprised of body, soul, intellect, and will. If you remove any one of these, he is no longer a human person. The accidents or accidentals would be things like hair color, eye color, size, weight, etc. One can change any of these and there would be no change in the essence or substance of the person.
In the Eucharist, after the priest consecrates the bread and wine and they are, in fact, transubstantiated into the body, blood, soul and divinity of our Lord, our Lord is then entirely present. Neither bread nor wine remains. However, the accidents of bread and wine (size, weight, taste, texture) do remain. Hence, the essential reason why Catholics are not guilty of cannibalism is the fact that we do not receive our Lord in a cannibalistic form. We receive him in the form of bread and wine. The two are qualitatively different.
Your comment: “Jesus is not bound by catholic dictates.”
The Catholic teaches us the Word of God and has been true to His teachings - not the other way as you suggest. Perhaps it is the protestors that that do not accept the word of God?
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.
Among the Christian churches, only the Catholic Church has existed since the time of Jesus. Every other Christian church is an offshoot of the Catholic Church. The Eastern Orthodox churches broke away from unity with the pope in 1054. The Protestant churches were established during the Reformation, which began in 1517. (Most of today’s Protestant churches are actually offshoots of the original Protestant offshoots.)
Only the Catholic Church existed in the tenth century, in the fifth century, and in the first century, faithfully teaching the doctrines given by Christ to the apostles, omitting nothing. The line of popes can be traced back, in unbroken succession, to Peter himself. This is unequaled by any institution in history.
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.